Our space industry. A look at the problems of the industry from the perspective of an ordinary developer
I worked in our space industry for a long time (1983-1995, 2008-2012). When you read articles about our failures, they often do not see the main existing mechanisms for creating problems.
So, I would like to start this consideration with the principle of “actual negative selection”. Who cares - I ask under the cat (a lot of letters and no pictures).
Actual Negative Selection
Somewhere in the distant 60s a lot of KBs, research institutes were created, and among them, one was created in Penza as a branch of the Research Institute of Measuring Technology (Podlipki Dachnye, now it's Korolev).
The goal was quite simple: the IT Research Institute was overloaded with the breadth of space issues and they wanted to transfer part of their projects to support and continue. In short, and in Russian, they required "boys in the wings." Shortly before, a local polytechnic institute was established in Penza. Very well and by this time the first issues of their “specialists” were prepared, about which one can say with stereotypes from anecdotes - “can hold a candle” and work as a “boy in progress”. Everything was wonderful for them - these "boys" were the first in this wonderful glade ... And they appreciated the beauty of this situation ... In the mid-60s, a young director was nominated, and friends from his "call" were appointed to key positions around him. And as often happens with mediocre people - they were painfully proud and well understood their selfish personal and group interests.
')
Somewhere in 1967-68, the young director makes a “clean-up” of the top of the smart guys - their potential competitors. All this was done very humanely. They were squeezed into the local polytechnic, and there they were helped with the financing and the creation of a new department ...
It is clear that for the sustainability of such an "research institute" it was fundamentally important that someone very competent do the initial development of projects, carry out the creation of some prototype samples and demonstrate the testing and debugging technique. At the initial stage, the transfer of projects, ideas and patronage from NIIIT played an important role in this regard.
In the future, the majority of theoretical studies of projects, initial prototyping, preparation of reviews and recommendations began to be done by the departments of universities. At that time, the departments of universities were distinguished as “islands” of some kind of freedom, including in terms of self-realization. Very interesting initial developments were proposed by graduate students and teachers of LETI, work was carried out with Baumanka, KhAI (Ukraine).
This scheme certainly worked, but you need to understand what a potential "bomb" was laid here. But back to the main thesis.
And in the late 80s, I heard a phrase about my boss, the boss, a very talented person who achieved the most outstanding results in the field of sensor electronics for space applications:
"... he is very competent, talented, very decent, which is unusual here, and is not part of any clan party ... Well ... here with such qualities he will not be allowed above the head of the laboratory ..". I am grateful to this man that he, at least within his laboratory, was able to create a creative atmosphere and a common sense orientation.
When in the early 2000s he gave a hint about the need for the enterprise to be more adequate to the modern realities, he was immediately given a kick from the enterprise.
The principle of a somewhat specific assessment of the results of labor worked below the level of the head of the laboratory (head of the sector).
I began my career as a designer, who was engaged in the general layout of plasma-ion engines in the Torch Design Bureau.
I did my first and only project there in half a year after the end of Baumanka. This was the 17B14 propulsion unit of the super heavy communication relay satellite. In fact, I had to completely redo the entire project for the lead engineer. I did it quite well. The project quietly and quietly lived their lives in the shop.
And my classmate, with whom I ended up at the Torch Design Bureau, was given a ready-made project to accompany. For the project of the satellite's propulsion unit — the naval reconnaissance — these were already the third hands. And there are inconsistencies, constant meetings with the authorities and the trawler wherever possible.
When I met this classmate on the 25th anniversary of graduation, he told me:
"... And you know, and in the 90s I was introduced to the title of Honored Mechanical Engineer of the Russian Federation ..."
In the new times, this principle has not gone away, but only acquired slightly different shades.
Hierarchical pyramid and regulatory system
The anecdotal moment of the places where I worked was a tremendous hierarchical pyramid and ... the lack of adequate management.
First, let's look at this pyramid.
It is clear that at its base is a simple public directly involved in grassroots work. This is a question of simple engineers, designers with all kinds of leaders and leaders of the groups. These are the so-called Artists. The head of the laboratory (sector) is already the next step - he spends a significant part of his working time on what goes on all sorts of meetings.
The chiefs nearest to the Head of the laboratory are the Head of the department and his…
When they were all in their circle, they could go and confer to the Heads of Offices and their deputies.
The next level of meetings is Deputy. Director (Chief) of the scientific (project) work.
And finally, the director (Chief Designer).
Here I am back in 2008 at NIIFI. The General Director is the Chief Designer, Doctor of Technical Sciences, Honored Mechanical Engineer of the Russian Federation (I confess, I don’t remember all this long list, but in official papers it was strictly forbidden to shorten anything).
And here there is a very big problem.
This man is the “first draft” and for a long time he was the Deputy Director for Scientific and Design Work. He was appointed to this key post for a specific purpose:
I remember my first project in electronics (NIIFI, 1988).
This was the topic "Quartz" - a measuring system of cryogenic liquids for a military heavy hydrogen laser.
When we, electronics engineers of our laboratory, discussed the beginning of this development with the designers of sensors, we emphasized that a strain gauge type sensor is probably not suitable here and the capacitive principle will be better. However, there was silence on the other side.
Next, I asked to describe what I should apply to the sensor and what was expected to shoot. I was interested in, including the expected variations in magnitudes and temperature dependencies. And yet, to correct the error of temperature, I asked about the need for a temperature sensor.
But there was silence again.
When I expressed the wish that the results of the conversations should be recorded and, if possible, in writing, the developers of the sensors could no longer stand and expressed themselves - they see such “declarations” for the first time.
- Well, well, what voltage should I apply to the strain bridge?
After a pause, I was told that 5 volts.
- And what level of signal will I get from the strainer bridge?
The pause was indecently large, and I asked again. It was the rare case when they had no right to answer. Finally, the answer was.
- 5 millivolt.
- A scatter of values? .. Levels of temperature drift? ..
I tried to keep asking questions, but the discussion was discontinued.
I designed that electronics really well. The basis of these sensors is thin-film technology, in the original version of the TU to which the temperature dependence of resistance is stated within the tolerance of ± 75 ppm (one millionth of a degree). In reality, the resulting temperature dependence of the resistive film hangs in the range of ± 3000 ppm. I placed the diagonal of the power supply to the measuring bridge, in another resistive bridge in the hope of pulling out the temperature signal.
And here comes the test.
When I measured the temperature dependence of the resistance of the diagonal power supply of the tensome bridge, it turned out to be 15-35 ppm (for comparison, the running precision resistors — C2-36 — 75 ppm, C2-29 — 75..50 ppm), and the dependence of the output signals on temperature — huge (800 ... 3000 ppm).
We are conducting a lot of measurements, and more and more it becomes clear that the project has gone out of all tolerances (and he could not help but get out - the real working temperature range of our strain gauges is 80..140 degrees and there could be no talk of any cryogenics ).
And suddenly at some point - Bach! - Datzkists point their fingers at me and loudly say - “He failed everything!” ... I try to discuss ... and idiocy burns in their eyes. They chose me as "whipping boy" and "scapegoat." An idea hovers around - “He must be dragged to his superiors!”
Finally, I explain - I carefully collect all the experimental data, spend analytics and have already built graphs from which it follows who is to blame. Suddenly and instantly idiocy in their eyes disappears. I am told that I am a bastard, the project is lowered on the brakes and "drained" ...
But who needs the collected statistics and graphs of dependencies? Nobody needs them. I nevertheless approached the Deputy Director for Science, but it turned out that he had a global position of the Ostrich.
Some time later, I became accustomed to being an electronics developer, and it became clear to me: “... our development laboratory is significantly more talented, it can work at an accelerated pace, and we can replace all electronics developers at NIIFI (this is 5 laboratories).”
But the same thought is the most dangerous sedition:
And the historical response of the “space leaders” to such calls is a multidimensional matrix - hierarchy, total regulation of everything and everyone, multiple parallel control (special sector of network schedules and reporting coupons, military acceptance, Quality Control Department, standard control, ...). When they all take their work very seriously, common sense can be forgotten.
In the 1980s, the regulatory regulatory framework was relatively adequate to the realities that were then. Now - this is not. At the grassroots level, we are strictly obliged to demonstrate loyalty to this whole order.
However, in full - it is either problematic, or there are places where the ordinary performer is out of control and has freedom of action.
And it begins ... Marlezonsky ballet
Imagine such a situation.
Some tuner on the stand in the workshop is setting up some kind of sensor.
Everything goes as usual, but at some point the contactor clicks somewhere and some electric motor turns off somewhere.
The adjuster changes the calibration pressure, and the sensor output voltage does not change. Then he turns off the power supply and after a few seconds turns it on again. The sensor resumes operation.
Or another situation.
A young man travels to Moscow to perform EMC instrumentation tests (electro-magnetic compatibility). From him it is assumed only one thing - a positive result. The tests themselves are carried out quite faithfully, the tester there “strikes” on the “tails” of our devices with all sorts of impulses, and the young man looks at the sensor on the laptop.
In this process there is one subtlety.
The program on the laptop has one key combination, which, when pressed, instead of picking up data from the sensor, an internal simulator turns on: the sensor (or rather its processor) is already in a comatose after some impulse shock, and the simulator shows that life is beautiful and amazing .
The young man knows (this is 2008-2012) that he has no chance to slip tests without this “focus”.
There is a mass of poorly formalized phenomena and parameters in production and development, which are not widely spoken.
Another point, from a large mass of performers was required and required a very strict adherence to certain patterns of understanding, actions and thinking. In modern realities
the templates of the old employees are the wildest archaic, and the young ones simply don’t have them.
Our response to modern challenges ...
Somewhere towards the end of the first decade of the 2000s, in our country a certain number of missiles were colorfully “damned”. It was a good time when oil prices were sky-high, and there was plenty of money in the state.
And the diagnostic program has fallen on us.
At first, all the chiefs at NIIFI shook their knees, and I had the feeling that it would be possible to agree with this audience. I prepared my vision of the problem.
However, the head said that my writing is nonsense, and according to the rules, any cool work of this kind should begin with a patent report. And all laboratories write patent reports at an accelerated pace.
The first wave of reports "rolled" - and for this the scientific research institute received good money ... Further ... all laboratories again write patent reports at an accelerated pace ... And again, again and again ... In order to somehow dilute these endless reports with practical results, new developments are being made that are practically completely repeat the previous ones.
This went on - 2009-2012.
It should be understood that the above task is just a separate link in a large chain. Prior to the subject of "Diagnostics" was the subject of "Renaissance" ... with a similar result. Even earlier, in the late 80s - early 90s, for example, an ambitious attempt was made to start developing its own specialized chips, and this received tangible resources from the state ...
But the fact is that the development of analog microcircuits is a task for aces among the aces of circuit engineering, and the stakes were made on completely random people practically from the “street”. Additionally, the development of microcircuits requires an extremely clear formulation of the design problem, ... and on the "space collective farm" there is a great deal of interference with this.
... And after the subject "Diagnostics" was, for example, an interesting subject "Sandwich".
This topic had significantly more funding than the "Diagnostics".
And who remembers now what tasks in this subject were promised to be solved?
As an insider, who was watching the situation from a grassroots position, I discovered already in the 80s that the tacit (... and conscious!) Decision about the failure of some kind of research and development is often made before any actual work begins.
In addition to the ambitious areas of focus, there are also seemingly dull tasks.
Paradoxically, these tasks may have a significantly higher potential for the final effect. These tasks include the introduction of CAD-a.
What is a CAD?
There are several answer options. According to the most popular and attractive option, CAD is when the computer works and thinks for you:
“Put or put your task into the computer from this side, but from that end - take out the solution”.
I tried to do this, from the beginning of the 90s (the era of the classic PCAD, PSpice) and up to our time (for example, Altium Designer).
The official movement in this direction at the enterprise always looked in general terms something like this. Here in the "officially important" laboratory there is a free guy. He is yesterday's turner, at that moment he studied at the evening department of the university, and he is given priority in a super-deficient (in the 90s) personal computer.
Stripping from the key element equation
Here I would say about education.
If we take as a starting point a good Soviet education, for example, at school this is additionally ZFTSH (correspondence school at the Moscow Physical and Technical Institute), a little earlier - participation in school technical circles (by the way, a very common and useful practice in the Soviet Union), and the university - Something like Baumanki. Such a starting point is very elegant, but for solving steep problems it is far, far from sufficient.
The first thing that is worth intensive work on is the engineering art design with the accumulation of practical experience.
But who is given the opportunity to officially get design experience and the ability to hone skills? The number of "lucky" was very small. And very often I saw a really anecdotal mechanism for selecting promising candidates.
Interesting opportunities are provided by interdisciplinary areas.
To work here, you need a double - triple actual education and freedom of action, which falls very badly on the hierarchy of scientific research institutes and the accepted style of work.
But the most brutal and slaughter - a bet on theoretical superiority. This requires a huge and lengthy effort. But after that you get the feeling that you are already in a different weight category and you can take on a completely different level of projects. And, I must say bluntly, very few people followed this path.
They gave me a kick from the enterprise to the boss, which I greatly respected and which I mentioned above ... This person is the author of the most prominent direction of NIIFI - a family of capacitive sensors with parameters many times superior to other options. Technically, there you can talk about a set of tricky theoretical "highlights" that compensate for several serious negative effects.
The most humorous thing is that there is a lot of descriptions in NIIFI, how it was done, a lot of old drawings, but no one understands how it all worked.
... And there are only tricky dynamic negative feedbacks ... and nothing more (the lower level is understood as a dynamic system of continuous time, the upper circuit is a discrete time system). And you can look at the other side with astonishment — those who fit in and head the hierarchical pyramid — these are local space academics, doctors, candidates of science ...
Somewhere in the early 80s I had to get acquainted with the guidelines of the RC-75 on the creation of space technology. According to the leadership of the industry, they were to become a "bible" for all developers. And indeed, on all floors of the hierarchy, they constantly talked about the importance of matching all the works with these materials.
I bothered to go to the 1st department and forced myself to read them.
Everything that is written there is very, very sensible (although it is stated in the language of extreme stress). These materials summarized the experience in the development of rocket and space 50s and possibly 60s.
If you retell RK-75 in a nutshell, then the big complex work is split into many stages, tasks, and then recursively - into sub-stages, sub-tasks and so on.
At the lower level, everything is presented in the form of mock-ups that are performed with a very narrow, specific and mainly research objective.
My personal experience demonstrates that if you want to create a new move quickly, then it is better to do it in quick, multiple small steps, with a lot of experiments and a complete covering of the problem. It is better to do a lot more and invest in the initial stages. In this, I agree with the RC-75.
But the bewilderment caused that in essence, no one was going to really follow the RC-75. In the structure of the enterprise there were production units “sharpened” for the tasks of prototyping, but already in the 80s they were used to service the management of the enterprise and the local elite (they sharpened spare parts for cars, pitching for summer houses). In addition, to be honest, 60-90% of developers are unable to create any intelligible new ideas, but among them there are representatives of completely “no brakes”. They either fall into the monstrousness of their plans, or try to create their “masterpieces” by the method of endless searching of experimental variants - the good is that the state “pays for the banquet”. At the same time, it was commonplace that in their “games” these comrades could easily “eat” both the budget of their project and the budget of their neighbors allocated for search directions.
In modern conditions, all this prototyping was recognized as ineffective, incomprehensible and unnecessary, falling under optimization.
So what is this prototyping?
In the Network Work Schedules in the 80s there was such a stage of prototyping. Here, for example, my boss set a task for me, I developed a scheme, soldered it on some piece of the breadboard board, finished it, debugged ... Then this model was attached to real sensors and thoroughly tested.
Here the most important thing is that the developer had a piece of freedom, which he had to use in the most intensive way for backlog and self-development. Depths of engineering theory are poorly absorbed without at least some such practice.
And yet, a high-quality and working layout, made even “on the knee”, is a very important argument when the project goes along the “big circle”, when all the design and production departments are involved, when everything goes with all the signatures and according to the approved rules.
It is curious to note that at the same time, the general opinion in the scientific research institute about such “work on the knee” was always arrogant and contemptuous. The bulk of them represented the development process as an assembly of a “picture” using the “cubes” method - fragments from textbooks and from ... “whole-drawn” variants taken from neighbors or somewhere else ...
A little bit about reincarnation
When I returned to NIIFI in 2008, I regularly attended local conferences.
young professionals. I was then curious to find out what kind of glimpses of knowledge about Fourier, Laplace, and Z-transformations from the “rising shift” (mathematical foundations for the description of dynamic systems).
When I listened to the reports, I paid attention to one peculiarity of all the speakers.
Each of them represented not his own work, but the work of virtually the entire department, but made, as it were, personally or with his central participation. As it turned out, they were both set up and explained to them like that.
As far as I remember, at that conference no one had any conviction in the presentation. But at the conference next year, the speakers already had firm notes.
At the last conference, at which I participated in 2012, everything was clear - Do you want success? “You pop out onto the stage, and then loudly -“ ... you know! I'm so cool here .. I’ve done so much! .. I’ve gotten this way! .. ”
... A few years later I meet a former colleague and his downright "sausage":
“... At NIIFI, now all the grassroots and middle management have been replaced by this promising youth ... You have no idea what kind of a circus is there now! ..”
...
I set forth my point of view on the situation and problems in the space industry on the forums when I was still working at NIIFI ... First, you look, some commission goes and something looks ... The authorities pointed to the Instruments of National Instruments and some Chinese and an order to stick tags - “Made in NIIFI” and submit to the commission. ... I described this on the forum ... Usually I bring some technical “nuances” ...
...
It lasted for a long time ... And now the people specifically go to interrogations ...
...
After some time, "Shock and Awe" also subsided ...
I meet in a relaxed atmosphere with my friend, and he tells me about the interrogation:
“... For a long time I was under interrogation. I was shown a lot of documents ...
But what struck me very much - none of the documents have XYZW signatures ... "
That is, it turns out that the Main Manipulator with a situation that, by the way, “mows down” under a fool, is a charlatan, in fact, it’s far from being a fool and has never appeared.
, «-», …
. , … — , .
, , , - . . , .
, , , , . « » «» , .
, . .
So, I would like to start this consideration with the principle of “actual negative selection”. Who cares - I ask under the cat (a lot of letters and no pictures).
Actual Negative Selection
Somewhere in the distant 60s a lot of KBs, research institutes were created, and among them, one was created in Penza as a branch of the Research Institute of Measuring Technology (Podlipki Dachnye, now it's Korolev).
The goal was quite simple: the IT Research Institute was overloaded with the breadth of space issues and they wanted to transfer part of their projects to support and continue. In short, and in Russian, they required "boys in the wings." Shortly before, a local polytechnic institute was established in Penza. Very well and by this time the first issues of their “specialists” were prepared, about which one can say with stereotypes from anecdotes - “can hold a candle” and work as a “boy in progress”. Everything was wonderful for them - these "boys" were the first in this wonderful glade ... And they appreciated the beauty of this situation ... In the mid-60s, a young director was nominated, and friends from his "call" were appointed to key positions around him. And as often happens with mediocre people - they were painfully proud and well understood their selfish personal and group interests.
')
Somewhere in 1967-68, the young director makes a “clean-up” of the top of the smart guys - their potential competitors. All this was done very humanely. They were squeezed into the local polytechnic, and there they were helped with the financing and the creation of a new department ...
It is clear that for the sustainability of such an "research institute" it was fundamentally important that someone very competent do the initial development of projects, carry out the creation of some prototype samples and demonstrate the testing and debugging technique. At the initial stage, the transfer of projects, ideas and patronage from NIIIT played an important role in this regard.
In the future, the majority of theoretical studies of projects, initial prototyping, preparation of reviews and recommendations began to be done by the departments of universities. At that time, the departments of universities were distinguished as “islands” of some kind of freedom, including in terms of self-realization. Very interesting initial developments were proposed by graduate students and teachers of LETI, work was carried out with Baumanka, KhAI (Ukraine).
This scheme certainly worked, but you need to understand what a potential "bomb" was laid here. But back to the main thesis.
And in the late 80s, I heard a phrase about my boss, the boss, a very talented person who achieved the most outstanding results in the field of sensor electronics for space applications:
"... he is very competent, talented, very decent, which is unusual here, and is not part of any clan party ... Well ... here with such qualities he will not be allowed above the head of the laboratory ..". I am grateful to this man that he, at least within his laboratory, was able to create a creative atmosphere and a common sense orientation.
When in the early 2000s he gave a hint about the need for the enterprise to be more adequate to the modern realities, he was immediately given a kick from the enterprise.
The principle of a somewhat specific assessment of the results of labor worked below the level of the head of the laboratory (head of the sector).
I began my career as a designer, who was engaged in the general layout of plasma-ion engines in the Torch Design Bureau.
I did my first and only project there in half a year after the end of Baumanka. This was the 17B14 propulsion unit of the super heavy communication relay satellite. In fact, I had to completely redo the entire project for the lead engineer. I did it quite well. The project quietly and quietly lived their lives in the shop.
And my classmate, with whom I ended up at the Torch Design Bureau, was given a ready-made project to accompany. For the project of the satellite's propulsion unit — the naval reconnaissance — these were already the third hands. And there are inconsistencies, constant meetings with the authorities and the trawler wherever possible.
When I met this classmate on the 25th anniversary of graduation, he told me:
"... And you know, and in the 90s I was introduced to the title of Honored Mechanical Engineer of the Russian Federation ..."
In the new times, this principle has not gone away, but only acquired slightly different shades.
Hierarchical pyramid and regulatory system
The anecdotal moment of the places where I worked was a tremendous hierarchical pyramid and ... the lack of adequate management.
First, let's look at this pyramid.
It is clear that at its base is a simple public directly involved in grassroots work. This is a question of simple engineers, designers with all kinds of leaders and leaders of the groups. These are the so-called Artists. The head of the laboratory (sector) is already the next step - he spends a significant part of his working time on what goes on all sorts of meetings.
The chiefs nearest to the Head of the laboratory are the Head of the department and his…
When they were all in their circle, they could go and confer to the Heads of Offices and their deputies.
The next level of meetings is Deputy. Director (Chief) of the scientific (project) work.
And finally, the director (Chief Designer).
Here I am back in 2008 at NIIFI. The General Director is the Chief Designer, Doctor of Technical Sciences, Honored Mechanical Engineer of the Russian Federation (I confess, I don’t remember all this long list, but in official papers it was strictly forbidden to shorten anything).
And here there is a very big problem.
This man is the “first draft” and for a long time he was the Deputy Director for Scientific and Design Work. He was appointed to this key post for a specific purpose:
- the director should not look worthless on his background
- real life can sometimes create quite powerful impulses, and at the top of the hierarchical pyramid a layer is needed in which the safe dissipation of the energy of such impulses takes place (a layer of cotton wool or clay).
I remember my first project in electronics (NIIFI, 1988).
This was the topic "Quartz" - a measuring system of cryogenic liquids for a military heavy hydrogen laser.
When we, electronics engineers of our laboratory, discussed the beginning of this development with the designers of sensors, we emphasized that a strain gauge type sensor is probably not suitable here and the capacitive principle will be better. However, there was silence on the other side.
Next, I asked to describe what I should apply to the sensor and what was expected to shoot. I was interested in, including the expected variations in magnitudes and temperature dependencies. And yet, to correct the error of temperature, I asked about the need for a temperature sensor.
But there was silence again.
When I expressed the wish that the results of the conversations should be recorded and, if possible, in writing, the developers of the sensors could no longer stand and expressed themselves - they see such “declarations” for the first time.
- Well, well, what voltage should I apply to the strain bridge?
After a pause, I was told that 5 volts.
- And what level of signal will I get from the strainer bridge?
The pause was indecently large, and I asked again. It was the rare case when they had no right to answer. Finally, the answer was.
- 5 millivolt.
- A scatter of values? .. Levels of temperature drift? ..
I tried to keep asking questions, but the discussion was discontinued.
I designed that electronics really well. The basis of these sensors is thin-film technology, in the original version of the TU to which the temperature dependence of resistance is stated within the tolerance of ± 75 ppm (one millionth of a degree). In reality, the resulting temperature dependence of the resistive film hangs in the range of ± 3000 ppm. I placed the diagonal of the power supply to the measuring bridge, in another resistive bridge in the hope of pulling out the temperature signal.
And here comes the test.
When I measured the temperature dependence of the resistance of the diagonal power supply of the tensome bridge, it turned out to be 15-35 ppm (for comparison, the running precision resistors — C2-36 — 75 ppm, C2-29 — 75..50 ppm), and the dependence of the output signals on temperature — huge (800 ... 3000 ppm).
We are conducting a lot of measurements, and more and more it becomes clear that the project has gone out of all tolerances (and he could not help but get out - the real working temperature range of our strain gauges is 80..140 degrees and there could be no talk of any cryogenics ).
And suddenly at some point - Bach! - Datzkists point their fingers at me and loudly say - “He failed everything!” ... I try to discuss ... and idiocy burns in their eyes. They chose me as "whipping boy" and "scapegoat." An idea hovers around - “He must be dragged to his superiors!”
Finally, I explain - I carefully collect all the experimental data, spend analytics and have already built graphs from which it follows who is to blame. Suddenly and instantly idiocy in their eyes disappears. I am told that I am a bastard, the project is lowered on the brakes and "drained" ...
But who needs the collected statistics and graphs of dependencies? Nobody needs them. I nevertheless approached the Deputy Director for Science, but it turned out that he had a global position of the Ostrich.
Some time later, I became accustomed to being an electronics developer, and it became clear to me: “... our development laboratory is significantly more talented, it can work at an accelerated pace, and we can replace all electronics developers at NIIFI (this is 5 laboratories).”
But the same thought is the most dangerous sedition:
- "Feed base" - the base of the hierarchical pyramid is reduced by 3-5 times,
- the pyramid falls into a tough dependence on real professionals,
- The situation has a chance to return to the distant 50s, 60s, when projects were done in weeks and months.
And the historical response of the “space leaders” to such calls is a multidimensional matrix - hierarchy, total regulation of everything and everyone, multiple parallel control (special sector of network schedules and reporting coupons, military acceptance, Quality Control Department, standard control, ...). When they all take their work very seriously, common sense can be forgotten.
In the 1980s, the regulatory regulatory framework was relatively adequate to the realities that were then. Now - this is not. At the grassroots level, we are strictly obliged to demonstrate loyalty to this whole order.
However, in full - it is either problematic, or there are places where the ordinary performer is out of control and has freedom of action.
And it begins ... Marlezonsky ballet
Imagine such a situation.
Some tuner on the stand in the workshop is setting up some kind of sensor.
Everything goes as usual, but at some point the contactor clicks somewhere and some electric motor turns off somewhere.
The adjuster changes the calibration pressure, and the sensor output voltage does not change. Then he turns off the power supply and after a few seconds turns it on again. The sensor resumes operation.
Or another situation.
A young man travels to Moscow to perform EMC instrumentation tests (electro-magnetic compatibility). From him it is assumed only one thing - a positive result. The tests themselves are carried out quite faithfully, the tester there “strikes” on the “tails” of our devices with all sorts of impulses, and the young man looks at the sensor on the laptop.
In this process there is one subtlety.
The program on the laptop has one key combination, which, when pressed, instead of picking up data from the sensor, an internal simulator turns on: the sensor (or rather its processor) is already in a comatose after some impulse shock, and the simulator shows that life is beautiful and amazing .
The young man knows (this is 2008-2012) that he has no chance to slip tests without this “focus”.
There is a mass of poorly formalized phenomena and parameters in production and development, which are not widely spoken.
Another point, from a large mass of performers was required and required a very strict adherence to certain patterns of understanding, actions and thinking. In modern realities
the templates of the old employees are the wildest archaic, and the young ones simply don’t have them.
Our response to modern challenges ...
Somewhere towards the end of the first decade of the 2000s, in our country a certain number of missiles were colorfully “damned”. It was a good time when oil prices were sky-high, and there was plenty of money in the state.
And the diagnostic program has fallen on us.
At first, all the chiefs at NIIFI shook their knees, and I had the feeling that it would be possible to agree with this audience. I prepared my vision of the problem.
However, the head said that my writing is nonsense, and according to the rules, any cool work of this kind should begin with a patent report. And all laboratories write patent reports at an accelerated pace.
The first wave of reports "rolled" - and for this the scientific research institute received good money ... Further ... all laboratories again write patent reports at an accelerated pace ... And again, again and again ... In order to somehow dilute these endless reports with practical results, new developments are being made that are practically completely repeat the previous ones.
This went on - 2009-2012.
It should be understood that the above task is just a separate link in a large chain. Prior to the subject of "Diagnostics" was the subject of "Renaissance" ... with a similar result. Even earlier, in the late 80s - early 90s, for example, an ambitious attempt was made to start developing its own specialized chips, and this received tangible resources from the state ...
But the fact is that the development of analog microcircuits is a task for aces among the aces of circuit engineering, and the stakes were made on completely random people practically from the “street”. Additionally, the development of microcircuits requires an extremely clear formulation of the design problem, ... and on the "space collective farm" there is a great deal of interference with this.
... And after the subject "Diagnostics" was, for example, an interesting subject "Sandwich".
This topic had significantly more funding than the "Diagnostics".
And who remembers now what tasks in this subject were promised to be solved?
As an insider, who was watching the situation from a grassroots position, I discovered already in the 80s that the tacit (... and conscious!) Decision about the failure of some kind of research and development is often made before any actual work begins.
In addition to the ambitious areas of focus, there are also seemingly dull tasks.
Paradoxically, these tasks may have a significantly higher potential for the final effect. These tasks include the introduction of CAD-a.
What is a CAD?
There are several answer options. According to the most popular and attractive option, CAD is when the computer works and thinks for you:
“Put or put your task into the computer from this side, but from that end - take out the solution”.
I tried to do this, from the beginning of the 90s (the era of the classic PCAD, PSpice) and up to our time (for example, Altium Designer).
The official movement in this direction at the enterprise always looked in general terms something like this. Here in the "officially important" laboratory there is a free guy. He is yesterday's turner, at that moment he studied at the evening department of the university, and he is given priority in a super-deficient (in the 90s) personal computer.
Stripping from the key element equation
Here I would say about education.
If we take as a starting point a good Soviet education, for example, at school this is additionally ZFTSH (correspondence school at the Moscow Physical and Technical Institute), a little earlier - participation in school technical circles (by the way, a very common and useful practice in the Soviet Union), and the university - Something like Baumanki. Such a starting point is very elegant, but for solving steep problems it is far, far from sufficient.
The first thing that is worth intensive work on is the engineering art design with the accumulation of practical experience.
But who is given the opportunity to officially get design experience and the ability to hone skills? The number of "lucky" was very small. And very often I saw a really anecdotal mechanism for selecting promising candidates.
Interesting opportunities are provided by interdisciplinary areas.
To work here, you need a double - triple actual education and freedom of action, which falls very badly on the hierarchy of scientific research institutes and the accepted style of work.
But the most brutal and slaughter - a bet on theoretical superiority. This requires a huge and lengthy effort. But after that you get the feeling that you are already in a different weight category and you can take on a completely different level of projects. And, I must say bluntly, very few people followed this path.
They gave me a kick from the enterprise to the boss, which I greatly respected and which I mentioned above ... This person is the author of the most prominent direction of NIIFI - a family of capacitive sensors with parameters many times superior to other options. Technically, there you can talk about a set of tricky theoretical "highlights" that compensate for several serious negative effects.
The most humorous thing is that there is a lot of descriptions in NIIFI, how it was done, a lot of old drawings, but no one understands how it all worked.
... And there are only tricky dynamic negative feedbacks ... and nothing more (the lower level is understood as a dynamic system of continuous time, the upper circuit is a discrete time system). And you can look at the other side with astonishment — those who fit in and head the hierarchical pyramid — these are local space academics, doctors, candidates of science ...
Somewhere in the early 80s I had to get acquainted with the guidelines of the RC-75 on the creation of space technology. According to the leadership of the industry, they were to become a "bible" for all developers. And indeed, on all floors of the hierarchy, they constantly talked about the importance of matching all the works with these materials.
I bothered to go to the 1st department and forced myself to read them.
Everything that is written there is very, very sensible (although it is stated in the language of extreme stress). These materials summarized the experience in the development of rocket and space 50s and possibly 60s.
If you retell RK-75 in a nutshell, then the big complex work is split into many stages, tasks, and then recursively - into sub-stages, sub-tasks and so on.
At the lower level, everything is presented in the form of mock-ups that are performed with a very narrow, specific and mainly research objective.
My personal experience demonstrates that if you want to create a new move quickly, then it is better to do it in quick, multiple small steps, with a lot of experiments and a complete covering of the problem. It is better to do a lot more and invest in the initial stages. In this, I agree with the RC-75.
But the bewilderment caused that in essence, no one was going to really follow the RC-75. In the structure of the enterprise there were production units “sharpened” for the tasks of prototyping, but already in the 80s they were used to service the management of the enterprise and the local elite (they sharpened spare parts for cars, pitching for summer houses). In addition, to be honest, 60-90% of developers are unable to create any intelligible new ideas, but among them there are representatives of completely “no brakes”. They either fall into the monstrousness of their plans, or try to create their “masterpieces” by the method of endless searching of experimental variants - the good is that the state “pays for the banquet”. At the same time, it was commonplace that in their “games” these comrades could easily “eat” both the budget of their project and the budget of their neighbors allocated for search directions.
In modern conditions, all this prototyping was recognized as ineffective, incomprehensible and unnecessary, falling under optimization.
So what is this prototyping?
In the Network Work Schedules in the 80s there was such a stage of prototyping. Here, for example, my boss set a task for me, I developed a scheme, soldered it on some piece of the breadboard board, finished it, debugged ... Then this model was attached to real sensors and thoroughly tested.
Here the most important thing is that the developer had a piece of freedom, which he had to use in the most intensive way for backlog and self-development. Depths of engineering theory are poorly absorbed without at least some such practice.
And yet, a high-quality and working layout, made even “on the knee”, is a very important argument when the project goes along the “big circle”, when all the design and production departments are involved, when everything goes with all the signatures and according to the approved rules.
It is curious to note that at the same time, the general opinion in the scientific research institute about such “work on the knee” was always arrogant and contemptuous. The bulk of them represented the development process as an assembly of a “picture” using the “cubes” method - fragments from textbooks and from ... “whole-drawn” variants taken from neighbors or somewhere else ...
A little bit about reincarnation
When I returned to NIIFI in 2008, I regularly attended local conferences.
young professionals. I was then curious to find out what kind of glimpses of knowledge about Fourier, Laplace, and Z-transformations from the “rising shift” (mathematical foundations for the description of dynamic systems).
When I listened to the reports, I paid attention to one peculiarity of all the speakers.
Each of them represented not his own work, but the work of virtually the entire department, but made, as it were, personally or with his central participation. As it turned out, they were both set up and explained to them like that.
As far as I remember, at that conference no one had any conviction in the presentation. But at the conference next year, the speakers already had firm notes.
At the last conference, at which I participated in 2012, everything was clear - Do you want success? “You pop out onto the stage, and then loudly -“ ... you know! I'm so cool here .. I’ve done so much! .. I’ve gotten this way! .. ”
... A few years later I meet a former colleague and his downright "sausage":
“... At NIIFI, now all the grassroots and middle management have been replaced by this promising youth ... You have no idea what kind of a circus is there now! ..”
...
I set forth my point of view on the situation and problems in the space industry on the forums when I was still working at NIIFI ... First, you look, some commission goes and something looks ... The authorities pointed to the Instruments of National Instruments and some Chinese and an order to stick tags - “Made in NIIFI” and submit to the commission. ... I described this on the forum ... Usually I bring some technical “nuances” ...
...
It lasted for a long time ... And now the people specifically go to interrogations ...
...
After some time, "Shock and Awe" also subsided ...
I meet in a relaxed atmosphere with my friend, and he tells me about the interrogation:
“... For a long time I was under interrogation. I was shown a lot of documents ...
But what struck me very much - none of the documents have XYZW signatures ... "
That is, it turns out that the Main Manipulator with a situation that, by the way, “mows down” under a fool, is a charlatan, in fact, it’s far from being a fool and has never appeared.
, «-», …
. , … — , .
, , , - . . , .
, , , , . « » «» , .
, . .
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/442846/
All Articles