On the evening of 16 March, Beijing time, a key launch at the Wenchang Aerospace Launch Site in Hainan attracted the attention of many rocket enthusiasts, including me.

At 21:34 in the evening, the Long March VIIA medium-sized carrier rocket, which made its first flight mission, ignited into the air. However, within a few seconds after the separation of the first and second stages of the rocket, an abnormal fire can be vaguely seen.

At 23:12 in the evening, that is, about one and a half hours after the ignition launch, Xinhua News Agency announced the failure of the launch. In the follow-up, experts will be organized to investigate and analyze the cause of the failure.

While regretting and distressing, I reviewed the history of Chinese rocket launches:

In fact, my country has always maintained a high launch success rate in rocket launches. From 1970 to 17 March 2020, my country has conducted 354 aerospace launches, with a launch success rate of 92.93%.

For example, in 2019, China carried out a total of 34 launch vehicles into orbit, two of which were unsuccessful; in 2018, China had 39 launch missions, of which only one failed. It is worth mentioning that of the three failures in 2018 and 2019, two of them were the first failed launch attempts of the Chinese private rocket company.

The following is a statistical chart of launch success and failure year by year (from Baidu Encyclopedia):

Although there are only 25 failures in total. But it is conceivable that for such a large-scale scientific research activity, every time such a launch failure occurs, countless people's efforts can be described as ruined. So, after an accident, how to sum up the lessons? How to prevent malfeasance? Prevent similar problems from happening next time?

Brother Xue, my friend in the aerospace department, introduced me to the principles they must follow after a failed launch:

Technology and management are zeroed in accordance with the Double Five Standards.

Five technical points: accurate positioning, clear mechanism, recurring problems, effective measures, and analogy.

Zero five management rules: clear process, clear responsibilities, implementation of measures, serious handling, and perfect rules.

I think this pair of five points is very good, not only in scientific research, in project management, and even in daily life, they can be used as steps and means for us to analyze problems and hold accountable. On this basis, I did a little research.

I think this pair of five points is very good, not only in scientific research, in project management, and even in daily life, they can be used as steps and means for us to analyze problems and hold accountable. On this basis, I did a little research.

First of all, what is "return to zero"?

Aerospace engineering is a systematic engineering, and it must not be a matter of "treating headaches and treating feet with pain". "Return to zero" means that once a fault or problem occurs, the inspection will be carried out from the first step to the last step, until the problem is completely resolved.v

For example, if there are 10,000 steps in the launch process, it is found that the 5301th part is faulty, causing the mission to fail. So, it is definitely not enough to modify the 5301th part, but to overthrow all 10,000 steps. Therefore, once an aerospace mission fails, its recovery time is much longer than in other industries.

Secondly, how did the Double Five Standards come into being?

In fact, these five standards are a painful lesson: after the commercial launch of the Changsan rocket in 1996, the aerospace department raised the issue of quality and technology to zero. Then, in the second half of 1996, the third launch of the Zhongxing satellite accident again. The space department continues to learn from it. By October 1997, it was first proposed in the "Quality Problem Zeroing Five Standards Publicity Manual" that the quality problem should be zeroed and the management should be zeroed five.

Video footage of the Changsan B rocket launch accident scene

Today, this standard has become one of the few management standards that China exports to the world:

ISO 18238:

Space systems-Closed Loop Problem Solving Management (Aerospace Quality Problem Solving Management)

The standard stipulates the basic procedures and requirements for the aerospace product manufacturing unit to conduct mechanism analysis, recurrence tests, corrective measures and inferences about product quality problems that occur, and provides effective methods for handling quality problems. This is also the first time that my country has promoted the best practices of aerospace management with Chinese characteristics to the world, demonstrating the important strength and influence of China's aerospace.

We have reason to believe that the aerospace department will follow the double-five-point zeroing standard and conduct a serious analysis and summary of this launch failure.

Having said that, I couldn't help but wonder: Can we also use these five points to analyze, trace and explore the new crown pneumonia epidemic?

Can we review, hold accountable, and analyze the entire process of new coronary pneumonia from its occurrence to its outbreak according to the following standards, so as to avoid recurrence in the future? I look forward to it.

Five technical points: accurate positioning, clear mechanism, recurring problems, effective measures, and analogy.

Zero five management rules: clear process, clear responsibilities, implementation of measures, serious handling, and perfect rules.