Write your thought on the following: 1. petroski notes that most engineering failures are much more involved than simple technical mis-calculations and involve the failure of the design process or management culture.However, not all engineering failures involve ethical issue.The infamous collapse of the first Tacoma Narrow Brodge, and the losses of the Mars polar lander and Mars Climate Orbiter were technical and design process failures. Solution In the face of new technology, how do we balance public welfare and progress? If Moisseiff had designed a bridge similar to the ones which had already proven their stability, Tacoma Narrows Bridge would never have collapsed costing thousands of dollars and endangering many lives. It would also have been significantly more expensive. On the other hand, if engineers had never tried innovative techniques, suspension bridges may never have been built at all. At the time of their introduction, no one believed that a suspension bridge could safely accommodate trains. Roebling, however, took a gamble, pushed the limits of the current technology, and built a suspension bridge that he believed could safely support rail traffic. Luckily he was correct, and suspension bridges soon became widely accepted (Petroski. Moisseiff also took a gamble, trying to create a longer, sleeker, less expensive bridge, by pushing the limits of technology. He, however, was not as lucky, and what could have been a breakthrough in technology turned into a catastrophic failure. Every time engineers push the limits of technology they risk a similar loss like losses of mas polar lander and mass climate orbiter in which there were technical error like Mass polar lander 1. Inadequate specifications which includes what the software was supposed to do, but no mention of what it must not to do. 2. Flawed review process: Violation of basic engineering safety pracitices in the digital part of the system. Mass Climate Orbiter 1. Units communication and attention to detail failure. The primary cause of this discrepancy was that one piece of ground software supplied by Lockheed Martin produced results in a United States customary unit, contrary to its Software Interface Specification (SIS), while a second system, supplied by NASA, expected those results to be in SI units, in accordance with the SIS. Specifically, software that calculated the total impulse produced by thruster firings calculated results in pound-seconds. The trajectory calculation software then used these results - expected to be in newton-seconds - to update the predicted position of the spacecraft. sometimes even It can cause a loss of life. How much is too much? When is a possible advance worth a risk to public safety? What can the engineering profession do to make the implementation of new technology safer? Do our current peer review and building code committee processes adequately protect public safety?.

1. Write your thought on the following:
1. petroski notes that most engineering failures are much more involved than simple technical
mis-calculations and involve the failure of the design process or management culture.However,
not all engineering failures involve ethical issue.The infamous collapse of the first Tacoma
Narrow Brodge, and the losses of the Mars polar lander and Mars Climate Orbiter were technical
and design process failures.
Solution
In the face of new technology, how do we balance public welfare and progress? If Moisseiff had
designed a bridge similar to the ones which had already proven their stability, Tacoma Narrows
Bridge would never have collapsed costing thousands of dollars and endangering many lives. It
would also have been significantly more expensive. On the other hand, if engineers had never
tried innovative techniques, suspension bridges may never have been built at all. At the time of
their introduction, no one believed that a suspension bridge could safely accommodate trains.
Roebling, however, took a gamble, pushed the limits of the current technology, and built a
suspension bridge that he believed could safely support rail traffic. Luckily he was correct, and
suspension bridges soon became widely accepted (Petroski. Moisseiff also took a gamble, trying
to create a longer, sleeker, less expensive bridge, by pushing the limits of technology. He,
however, was not as lucky, and what could have been a breakthrough in technology turned into a
catastrophic failure. Every time engineers push the limits of technology they risk a similar loss
like losses of mas polar lander and mass climate orbiter in which there were technical error like
Mass polar lander
1. Inadequate specifications which includes what the software was supposed to do, but no
mention of what it must not to do.
2. Flawed review process: Violation of basic engineering safety pracitices in the digital part of
the system.
Mass Climate Orbiter
1. Units communication and attention to detail failure. The primary cause of this discrepancy
was that one piece of ground software supplied by Lockheed Martin produced results in a United
States customary unit, contrary to its Software Interface Specification (SIS), while a second
system, supplied by NASA, expected those results to be in SI units, in accordance with the SIS.
Specifically, software that calculated the total impulse produced by thruster firings calculated
results in pound-seconds. The trajectory calculation software then used these results - expected to

2. be in newton-seconds - to update the predicted position of the spacecraft.
sometimes even It can cause a loss of life. How much is too much? When is a possible advance
worth a risk to public safety? What can the engineering profession do to make the
implementation of new technology safer? Do our current peer review and building code
committee processes adequately protect public safety?