The Bra-and-Girdle Maker That Fashioned the Impossible for NASA

> (The company learned that lesson in 1967, after a single pin was discovered between the layers of a suit prototype, leading to the installation of an X-ray machine on the shop floor that would regularly scan the suits for errant fasteners.)

This is also a thing in consumer mass production now. An outerwear factory that our startup worked with had a needle scanner as the last step of the process, before shipping. There was basically a window that finished units had to pass through, to shipping, so that the needle scanner wouldn't accidentally be skipped.

After an “incident” with the first astronaut fitted for the device, the UCD’s designations were changed from “Small, Medium, Large” to “Large,” “Extra Large,” and “Extra-Extra Large.”

I knew it. Serious issues that still persists to this day.

Great points on the documentation. It's hard to find the perfect balance and I see it from NASA's POV. I've seen countless times where on system level testing a component isn't playing nice and being able to trace which systems have which batches was crucial in finding the cause and remedying it. I'd like to think it's the same for product recalls in the consumer space that only impact specific serial number ranges.

So it's nice that ILC played ball to the level they did. I really didn't expect hiring 56 of their competitors.

I cannot imagine the dedication of the makers. I make quilts, all improv, because the mere thought of following a pattern sends me into a tizzy.

So much admiration for the designers and fabricators.

Does anyone know if these or similar techniques are still used in today's suits production?

Interesting article. I was expecting a completely different exposé of NASA, based on the title...

[dead]

[dead]