Searching \ for 'it look like NASA lost the columbia!' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: techref.massmind.org/techref/index.htm?key=look+like+nasa+lost
Search entire site for: 'it look like NASA lost the columbia!'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'it look like NASA lost the columbia!'
2003\02\01@101253 by Frank Babis

flavicon
face
I just read about it.

I'm very relieved to find out that neither of my two
cousins, both shuttle pilots, were on that mission.

I'll say a prayer for the crew and their families.

-Frank

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2003\02\01@102838 by Tal

flavicon
face
We feel so sorry for that accident. on the news they talk about astronauts
will Parashoot to the earth.. I can't believe it..

I don't understand how it happened...Billions of dollars to produce
Super-super-hi-tech shuttle & equipment. the best of the best materials,
special human teams, special and very unique technologies.

and a disaster like that?

I can't understand it!

Tal

{Original Message removed}

2003\02\01@103457 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
its partly because of the super high tech approach
everything in it is running on the bleeding edge, 99% of maximum performance
all the time
and everything is a one off no production runs no time proven technology.

my only hope is that this dosent screw the space program.
about the only good thing it seems bush has done is push the space program
and it looked like they were just starting to really pick up and go at space
doing what NASA should do (high science etc not focusing on "getting into"
space (thats been done) but more on "whats next")

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tal" <spam_OUTkooterTakeThisOuTspam012.NET.IL>
To: <.....PICLISTKILLspamspam@spam@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 2:28 AM
Subject: Re: it look like NASA lost the columbia!


{Quote hidden}

> {Original Message removed}

2003\02\01@110242 by Sean Alcorn - PIC Stuff

flavicon
face
--Apple-Mail-2--763967467
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
       charset=US-ASCII;
       format=flowed

Hi Tal,

Couldn't sleep. Have been watching from downunder.

It must be particularly sad for you - with the first Israeli on a Space
Shuttle mission. My first thought was for our Aussie astronaut. He was
not on board, but the world has lost 7 special pilots.

> We feel so sorry for that accident. on the news they talk about
> astronauts
> will Parashoot to the earth.. I can't believe it..

I can not see this to be honest. Not at the speeds those things travel
at on approach.

They are pushing the envelope. They know what the risks are. I think
the American Space program has done very well to log so many flight
hours with so few lives lost.

I hope it does not affect the program.

My thoughts are with the families.

Regards,

Sean

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads



--Apple-Mail-2--763967467
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/enriched;
       charset=US-ASCII

Hi Tal,


Couldn't sleep. Have been watching from downunder.


It must be particularly sad for you - with the first Israeli on a
Space Shuttle mission. My first thought was for our Aussie astronaut.
He was not on board, but the world has lost 7 special pilots.


<excerpt><fixed>We feel so sorry for that accident. on the news they
talk about astronauts

will Parashoot to the earth.. I can't believe it..

</fixed></excerpt><fixed>

I can not see this to be honest. Not at the speeds those things travel
at on approach.


They are pushing the envelope. They know what the risks are. I think
the American Space program has done very well to log so many flight
hours with so few lives lost.


I hope it does not affect the program.


My thoughts are with the families.


Regards,


Sean </fixed>


--Apple-Mail-2--763967467--

2003\02\01@125811 by Frank Babis

flavicon
face
>
> I don't understand how it happened...Billions of dollars to produce
> Super-super-hi-tech shuttle & equipment. the best of the best materials,
> special human teams, special and very unique technologies.
>
> and a disaster like that?
>
> I can't understand it!
>
> Tal

Well, consider that the shuttles were designed in the 70's
and NASA has to scrounge/scavenge 8086 286 and 386
CPU's to keep the shuttles systems going.

The shuttles were high tech 15 years ago. Now they mostly
consist of junk that most people wouldn't think twice about
throwing away.

My father said he hoped that people wouldn't use this disaster
as a reason to shut NASA down or even cut it's funding. I hope
that this disaster would make people want to put more money
into the space program to build a new space vehicle.


-Frank

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2003\02\01@131237 by Tal

flavicon
face
Frank

I disagree with you about the shuttle being a piece of junk. even I am not
familiar with NASA development at all.
I think (and you can of course correct me if I am wrong) most of the shuttle
is *REAL* hi-tech even for the upcoming years.

But again, I'm not an expert in the space/aeronautic field.
Tal

{Original Message removed}

2003\02\01@160531 by Frank Babis

flavicon
face
> I disagree with you about the shuttle being a piece of junk. even I am not
> familiar with NASA development at all.
> I think (and you can of course correct me if I am wrong) most of the
shuttle
> is *REAL* hi-tech even for the upcoming years.
>
> But again, I'm not an expert in the space/aeronautic field.
> Tal

I was wrong. They don't use 8086 286 or 386 CPU's. They
didn't exist when the shuttle was being built. The shuttle uses
5 IBM AP101S computers. They were upgraded from the
AP101B's in 1991.

AP101S(new)    256k x 32 bit    1.2MIPs      20,000MTBF designed 1982
AP101B(old)      104k x 32 bit    0.4MIPs        5,200MTBF Designed 1968

MTBF=Mean Time Between Failures.

NASA web based shuttle reference.
spaceflight.sc.wip.psiweb.com/shuttle/reference/shutref/verboseindex.
html

Computers in Spaceflight: The NASA Experience
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/computers/Compspace.html

The website is really slow right now.

-Frank

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2003\02\01@171556 by Mike Morris

flavicon
face
At 09:55 AM 2/1/2003 -0800, you wrote:

>Well, consider that the shuttles were designed in the 70's
>and NASA has to scrounge/scavenge 8086 286 and 386
>CPU's to keep the shuttles systems going.
>
>The shuttles were high tech 15 years ago. Now they mostly
>consist of junk that most people wouldn't think twice about
>throwing away.

JUNK? Are 8-bit PICs used in high tech applications junk because they don't
come close performance wise to the latest Intel or Motorola processors? Are
they junk in the applications designed to use them because there are newer
processors out there? Systems and subsystems are designed and engineered
based around the capabilities of the individual components. These
components have been evaluated as suitable for the given application. The
fact these components may not be the current state of the art does reduce
their effectiveness in their role. Nor can one conclude that simply
replacing that component with something newer would necessarily improve or
enhance the capabilities of the system it was a part of. The "Junk" you
refer to has performed flawlessly as a system since the first shuttle
flight in 1981. The shuttles have been flying since the early 80s. They are
not new vehicles. They are however, still the most sophisticated vehicle
ever produced by humans, and continues to be the world's one and only
reusable launch vehicle. Most certainly "high tech" in the extreme... 15
years ago.. and 15 minutes ago.

Time will tell what the cause of today's tragedy was, but the STS remains a
time tested and proven system with an amazing safety and performance record
considering the number of flights, and the incredibly hostile environment
it must endure during on each and every mission. It seems particularly
inappropriate to refer to any component used to accomplish such a feat as
"junk".

- Mike

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2003\02\01@173720 by Philip Pemberton

face picon face
Frank Babis wrote:
> Well, consider that the shuttles were designed in the 70's
> and NASA has to scrounge/scavenge 8086 286 and 386
> CPU's to keep the shuttles systems going.
Well, put it this way - would you send a shuttle up with a Pentium at the
helm? What, after the FDIV, F00F and permission-override bugs? FDIV caused
huge errors in floating point division, F00F meant the CPU would lock solid
no matter if it was in Protected Mode or Real Mode, permission override
meant that any program could get Ring Zero (highest permissions level,
equivalent to the Windows/Linux kernel during runtime) access. And go
totally ballistic with the hardware...
OTOH, I would send a Shuttle up with an AMD Am486 or K6 at the helm. Why?
Because I've never seen an AMD processor with any microcode or design
errors, period.

Later.
--
Phil.
philpemspamKILLspamdsl.pipex.com
http://www.philpem.dsl.pipex.com/

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2003\02\01@174437 by Philip Pemberton

face picon face
Mike Morris wrote:
> JUNK? Are 8-bit PICs used in high tech applications junk because they
> don't come close performance wise to the latest Intel or Motorola
> processors?
No, not in any sense. Can *you* get a 386 or 68k machine running *AND* get
its current consumption down to 2mA? I think not :-)

> Systems and subsystems
> are designed and engineered based around the capabilities of the
> individual components. These components have been evaluated as
> suitable for the given application. The fact these components may not
> be the current state of the art does reduce their effectiveness in
> their role. Nor can one conclude that simply replacing that component
> with something newer would necessarily improve or enhance the
> capabilities of the system it was a part of.
Hear hear. Speaking of old kit, I've got three HTEC "Kitty Card"
microprocessor modules. They are now over ten years old and STILL WORK
PERFECTLY. In fact, they're based on the only Intel CPU I know of that isn't
full of questionable features or glitches. The 8032. No onboard ROM, 256
*bytes* of onboard RAM, 16MHz maximum clock speed. 12 clock cycles per
machine cycle. Average performance at 12MHz is 1MIPS. Sure, it doesn't
compare to, say a Dallas DS89C420 (33MHz High Speed 8051) or a Ubicom SX28AC
(100MHz RISC... *drool*), but it gets the job done.

> The "Junk" you refer to
> has performed flawlessly as a system since the first shuttle flight
> in 1981. The shuttles have been flying since the early 80s. They are
> not new vehicles. They are however, still the most sophisticated
> vehicle ever produced by humans, and continues to be the world's one
> and only reusable launch vehicle. Most certainly "high tech" in the
> extreme... 15 years ago.. and 15 minutes ago.
What ever happened to the Russian "Buran" shuttle, anyway? I remember
reading about it in an article a while back...

> Time will tell what the cause of today's tragedy was, but the STS
> remains a time tested and proven system with an amazing safety and
> performance record considering the number of flights, and the
> incredibly hostile environment it must endure during on each and
> every mission. It seems particularly inappropriate to refer to any
> component used to accomplish such a feat as "junk".
*clap* *clap* *clap* *clap*.

My condolences to the families of the seven astronauts who died on that
shuttle.

Later.
--
Phil.
.....philpemKILLspamspam.....dsl.pipex.com
http://www.philpem.dsl.pipex.com/

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2003\02\01@180845 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
NASA admits that it has shoppers on ebay bidding to obtain
out-of-production components to use in the space program.

Perhaps COTS should be re-evaluated.

Andy


At 02:13 PM 2/1/03 -0800, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2003\02\01@180952 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
>What ever happened to the Russian "Buran" shuttle, anyway? I remember
>reading about it in an article a while back...

Big writeup in Air & Space Smithsonian magazine - http://www.airspacemag.com -
look in the archives for the past 18 months.  I think the last 6 months,
actually.

Andy

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2003\02\01@190249 by Wagner Lipnharski

flavicon
face
Tal wrote:
> I don't understand how it happened...Billions of dollars to produce
> Super-super-hi-tech shuttle & equipment. the best of the best
> materials, special human teams, special and very unique technologies.
>
> and a disaster like that?
>
> I can't understand it!
>
> Tal

Billions of dollars, thousands of brightest scientists working to produce
the super-dee-duper high tech, just to try to avoid the zillions of
possible problems and things that can go wrong, when very few ways will
work. In middle of all of this, sometimes disasters happens, just to
remember us about the long way yet to go.  This only happens with creatures
that explore and search, us.  In this area, we found a way to run safe in
the dark, in middle of many deadly holes and sharp teeth beasts, but
sometimes a new hole appears and takes life away, so we need to learn,
remap and survive.

I have a friend at Nasa, he lives close by, called him today, was
devastated, was in shock, could only say few words, promised to call me
back later today or tomorrow.

The STS107's crew, highly skilled professionals, youngest was 41 years old.
You don't find this kind of people everyday, probably we need more than 50
million to select only 7 persons like that. Probably most of us can live an
entire life and not get close to a thousand miles from a person like this.
A great loss to the world community. My respects to the families and
relatives.

http://www.nasa.gov/STS-107_crew.pdf

I can't understand a disaster like that either, but I must accept.

Wagner

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2003\02\01@201208 by Josh Koffman

flavicon
face
I searched the website, and I think the issue is the December
2002/January 2003 issue. Unfortunatly I don't think that article is
online. The page I found is
http://www.airspacemag.com/asm/Mag/Index/2003/DJ/Contents.html

Do you remember what the article said?

Thanks,

Josh
--
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools.
       -Douglas Adams

Andy Kunz wrote:
>
> >What ever happened to the Russian "Buran" shuttle, anyway? I remember
> >reading about it in an article a while back...
>
> Big writeup in Air & Space Smithsonian magazine - http://www.airspacemag.com -
> look in the archives for the past 18 months.  I think the last 6 months,
> actually.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2003\02\01@204307 by Jonathan Johnson

flavicon
face
Analogue devices has a warning on their website about designing COTS
components in space and aviation/critical life support systems. Somebody
might have tried to sue them........? it only appeared a month or so ago.

JJ

{Original Message removed}

2003\02\01@210008 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> Analogue devices has a warning on their website about designing COTS
> components in space and aviation/critical life support systems. Somebody
> might have tried to sue them........? it only appeared a month or so ago.

       I'm surprised it took them that long, National has had that warning for
years now! :) TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2003\02\02@005245 by Frank Babis

flavicon
face
> At 09:55 AM 2/1/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>
> >Well, consider that the shuttles were designed in the 70's
> >and NASA has to scrounge/scavenge 8086 286 and 386
> >CPU's to keep the shuttles systems going.
> >
> >The shuttles were high tech 15 years ago. Now they mostly
> >consist of junk that most people wouldn't think twice about
> >throwing away.

Ahhrrgghhh. I don't mean to call the shuttle junk. I think that it
is the most amazing machine in use by man today. And I don't
mean to offend people with my reply. I wrote the sentence
wrong. I was distracted by a call from my father asking if I
knew if one of my cousins was on that mission.

What I meant to say, the shuttles mostly consist of components
that "most people" would consider outdated junk and wouldn't
think twice about throwing away. I mean that in the way people
throw out TV's, computers, and other equipment that has 50
times the processing speed and power of the shuttles 5
computers. $20 devices that have 80 times the memory and
functionality. People consider this stuff way outdated because
it's 10 or even 5 years old. Because the technology was
designed and has been in use since 1982. It's hardly bleeding
edge technology anymore.

Also the non electronic parts of the shuttles such as lubricating
grease that hasn't been in production for the last 8 years. Struts,
beams and other structural components designed for the shuttles
original expected lifetime are still in use 20 years later. These
components were simply not meant to be in service so many
years later.

I'm also thinking of the limitations these components have placed
on the shuttles missions and functionality. I'm thinking of systems
that draw less power so smaller batteries are carried. Smaller, longer
lasting batteries that weigh an 1/8 as much as the ones in use.
Smaller more powerful components like this could make room
for huge possibilities.
The shuttle -- which has more than 2.5 million parts -- has proved itself to
be a reliable way to transport people and equipment to and from orbit, "a
magnificent vehicle with a tremendous amount of capability," Blomberg said.
But it was never expected to last so long.

Blomberg cites the leak of explosive hydrogen from a fuel-venting pipe while
Atlantis sat on the pad in April.

"Nobody thought that line would be in service 20-odd years down the road,"
he said. "The weld should be good for the then-projected life of the space
shuttle. But these things have been stretched out. Things that were not
safety risks . . . now all of a sudden may start to become
concerns." -Richard Blomberg, former chairman of the Aerospace Safety
Advisory Panel

-Frank

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\02@015011 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
my opinion of the shuttle is that it is/was overly complex.
it was meant to be used as a space "truck" but its design was that of a
racing car.
the electronics as used on board it were immature at the time of design
(50's) and development(70's?) and the modernisation process was almost too
hard to manage in a safe manner.
really you only have to look at the Russian launchers and perhaps some of
the X-Prize competitors (like say John Carmack (Armadillo aerospace) of ID
(doom,quake etc) fame) to see what's possible with both a low tech approach
and using the best of high tech. The Russians approach is generally
something along the lines of well instead of making the tolerances tighter
on this item we'll make it a bit stronger, simpler and add some more fuel.
the armadillo approach is something like make it solid state and tough and
we'll fix the rest in software (I think if anybody can put their faith in
their coding abilities John can ;->). In the end i think both these
approaches will merge, use high powered computing to make your mechanical
systems simpler and stronger, not using the high powered computers to make
the mechanical devices just as complex. The design of the shuttle was always
shooting to get to that 99% of theoretical performance and as we all know
its that last 10%-15% that is the hardest part to achive.

this isn't to say that the space shuttle as it stands isn't one of the
greatest achievements of mankind to date it is truly a monument to what we
can achieve if we want to. the only real problem is the same one as
engineers always face the customer changing the specs during the process
then using it for a purpose that was not intended.

To the astronauts I hope they didn't suffer and although tragically early I
don't think there could be a better way for them to go out, as hero's. The
only true way to honour their sacrifice to the education and legacy of the
human race is to keep flying and keep building stuff bigger and better.


{Original Message removed}

2003\02\02@022610 by Scott Stephens

picon face
From: "Frank Babis" <EraseMEfrankspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTDGP.COM>
Subject: Re: it look like NASA lost the columbia!

> > >The shuttles were high tech 15 years ago. Now they mostly
> > >consist of junk that most people wouldn't think twice about
> > >throwing away.

I wouldn't call it junk, I would call it complicated. Big corporations often
over-engineer and complicate systems rather than simplifying them. The same
corporation (which I would love to name, but consider bad form because I
worked for them) also gave us the B1 bomber. I think before Afghanistan, it
had killed more of our pilots than enemy and was worth its weight in gold.
Complexity is bad, simplicity is good. It takes a staff of 30,000 to
maintain the shuttle. I don't think it is junk, I think it is obscenely
expensive, complex and unecessary. And because of that, it hogs resources
that would do far greater good elsewhere. Why couldn't the Skunk Works have
designed a shuttle? Probably not in the right congressional district.

Scott

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\02@025307 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
From: "Tal" <kooterspamspam_OUT012.NET.IL>
> I don't understand how it happened...Billions of dollars to produce
> Super-super-hi-tech shuttle & equipment. the best of the best materials,
> special human teams, special and very unique technologies.
> and a disaster like that?
> I can't understand it!

Here's a response I posted to the ARocket list, which addresses your
question. I'll not modify it although the original question was slightly
different. Original question at top:

Background:     Best bet at present (which may well prove to be wrong) seems
to be that a piece of debri (ice? insulation?) off the main tank which was
known to have struck the left wing during ascent, caused structural damage
or damage to insulating tiles. There was no onboard capability to inspect
the surface concerned. The arm was not carried on this mission and may or
may not have allowed an EVA to the area concerned or a camera view. As there
is no tile repair capability in flight no repair action could have been
taken in any case. The current mission was in a different plane to the ISS
and did not have enough fuel to dock with the ISS.
(I personally feel that it was a mistake not to carry something as light and
useful as an MMU (manned manouvering unit) or equivalent on all flights, to
allow manned and unmanned-camera EVA to all external points. Such judgements
are easily made in hindsight.)



       Russell McMahon

_______________________________

> Surely the standards are currently lacking, if the project met all current
> standards, a launch condition was granted, and still human life was lost
> after complete and utter failure of the machine?

This is a general engineering question and can be addressed in that context.

1.    Not necessarily.
The standards for any manned space endeavours have always been that if you
do everything right then nobody dies most of the time. "Most of the time" is
the bottom line in an overall risk assessment. It's always been appreciated
that loss of life is a significant prospect compared to most daily
endeavours. Less so for STS than earlier systems but still significant. The
system can be made safer up to a point, but not safe by everyday standards,
by expenditure of more resources on safety aspects.

You can raise the standards, but the cost is measured not only in dollars
but in performance and cost of lost opportunity to use the requisite mass /
space / expertise resource for other purposes. With any sort of machine
based travel there is a point where the burdens made by raising safety
standards would make any mission impossible. With automobiles this level is
not reached before the standard of "acceptable safety to most people" is
met. With manned space travel the difficulties are such that the standard of
"acceptable safety to most people" is not likely to be met in the
foreseeable future.

I can't imagine that it would be impossible to provide an all surface EVA
capability on all STS missions and I imagine that an onboard universal tile
repair system would be possible, even though this may require an on board
fabrication facility and onboard expertise to handle this system on all
missions. It is inconceivable that the prospect of doing this has not passed
through people's minds. Presumably (and hopefully) the cost has been weighed
against the benefit, and the overall risk determined to be too low to
justify the provision. The loss of an orbiter does not necessarily falsify
that risk assessment and judgement - risk is probability based and if events
catch you out unexpectedly "against the odds" you may wish you had done
differently even though the "economics" and original assessments are still
sound. Most of us drive significant distances in autos while being well
aware of the worst case dangers involved. Wile the validity of the safety
and risk models are well enough known, if we personally undergo a worst case
disaster our perspectives may change.

2.    Possibly.
Sadly, it often takes a tragedy to cause people to review probability
assessments and assumptions and to arrive at different answers than
originally which, in retrospect, are obviously closer to correct. Challenger
is a classic example of this. Also sadly, once a disaster does occur, future
decisions may be LESS sound from a probabilistic point of view due to the
natural human reactions to such events. This is not a good time to make
extended comparisons, but a look at the very real and accepted dangers of
commercial air travel by the general public may be useful. (Don't accept the
"safer on a per mile bases than car travel" arguments - it's the "per trip"
safety you care about.)

The loss of Columbia is indeed a great tragedy and much sadder than the
death of 7 randomly selected people would be. An inquiry is indeed needed
and will certainly be held, but let's hope that those who care more about
political capital and looking good don't prevail over those who are prepared
to take risks "acceptable to brave pioneers" to advance the causes of space
travel, science and humanity in general.



           Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\02@075328 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
At 08:43 PM 2/1/03 -0600, you wrote:
>I searched the website, and I think the issue is the December
>2002/January 2003 issue. Unfortunatly I don't think that article is
>online. The page I found is
>http://www.airspacemag.com/asm/Mag/Index/2003/DJ/Contents.html

That's the issue.

They built two - a mockup and the flyer.  One is in Australia.  I forget
where the other is.  There were letters to the editor in the March issue
(just read it last night) about the one in Oz.

Andy

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\02@075336 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
I wouldn't worry about that.

A friend of mine from NASA (now retired) used to qualify COTS equipment for
space.  Some stuff works great, some doesn't.  They have some lab in Indy I
think that they do the testing at.

Anyway, my comment was geared toward the support life span for commercial
equipment, not the quality.  They use commercial laptops in space.  That is
fine - they are there as tools.  The equipment for flying the bird, though
- they need to provide a lot more than a 3-year equipment life on that stuff.

They are still using 8" floppies for some of their stuff.

Andy

At 12:42 PM 2/2/03 +1000, you wrote:
>Analogue devices has a warning on their website about designing COTS
>components in space and aviation/critical life support systems. Somebody
>might have tried to sue them........? it only appeared a month or so ago.
>
>JJ
>
>{Original Message removed}

2003\02\02@075337 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
>Also the non electronic parts of the shuttles such as lubricating
>grease that hasn't been in production for the last 8 years. Struts,
>beams and other structural components designed for the shuttles
>original expected lifetime are still in use 20 years later. These
>components were simply not meant to be in service so many
>years later.

They were designed for 100 flight cycles.  Columbia only had about 30.

>But it was never expected to last so long.

Calendar years and flight life are two totally different things - like the
Mythical Man-Month.  Sure, some things deteriorate just with age, but those
are also checked and replaced regularly on a man carrying vehicle.

WWII airplanes weren't designed to be flying 60 years later.  The WWI-era
planes still flying today (Rhinebeck, NY for instance) surely weren't
intended for tens of decades of service either.  The aircraft industry has,
more than any other, driven the materials service life studies.

Andy

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\02@091342 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
Russell McMahon wrote:

> Background:     Best bet at present (which may well prove to be wrong) seems
> to be that a piece of debri (ice? insulation?) off the main tank which was
> known to have struck the left wing during ascent, caused structural damage
> or damage to insulating tiles.


This is indeed a sad day, such tragic loss of life, face
and probably impetus of the space program. :o(

I do question your best bet (above), as i'm thinking the
insulation incident may be a red herring. I have a bad
feeling about the age of the shuttle, coupled with an
inexperienced crew. Minutes before the breakup the
shuttle performed a high wing-stress roll manuever,
*possibly* at a few too many degrees rotation, and this
was right at the max heat/stress point of re-entry or
very close to it. An already ageing air frame, and some
tiny crew errors near the point of max re-entry stresses
would do it. Until they have the facts maybe it's easier
or safer just to blame a piece of foam but I won't be
surprised of it turns out to be worse news than that.

My sympathy goes to the ground crew. The voice comms on
the shuttle are modular and reliable, and i'm sure the
ground crew got to listen to a few seconds of some very
horrifying stuff before it did go dead. Yes the public
don't really need to know this and are probably best
fed the sanitised version of events. I just hope the
great people in the program keep their nerve and never
turn away from man's expansion outward into the universe.
After all, how many died at sea during the exploration
of the globe?
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\02@175534 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Jonathan Johnson wrote:

*>Analogue devices has a warning on their website about designing COTS
*>components in space and aviation/critical life support systems. Somebody
*>might have tried to sue them........? it only appeared a month or so ago.

I thought everyone has such a warning. TI, National, etc. all. With
lawyers making more money than engineers what would you expect ?

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\03@014809 by Reinaldo Alvares

picon face
Here are some details.
RA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Kunz" <@spam@montanaKILLspamspamFAST.NET>
To: <KILLspamPICLISTKILLspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: it look like NASA lost the columbia!


{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2003\02\03@014814 by Reinaldo Alvares

picon face
www.buran.ru/htm/molniya.htm
Sorry forgot the link ;-)
RA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Kunz" <RemoveMEmontanaTakeThisOuTspamFAST.NET>
To: <spamBeGonePICLISTspamBeGonespamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: it look like NASA lost the columbia!


{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2003\02\03@123836 by Charles Anderson

flavicon
face
Yes, 100 flights, but they also thought that they would have a 2 week
turn around time, so you'd hit 100 flights after just 4 years.

-Charlie
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 07:42:57AM -0500, Andy Kunz wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--
Charles Anderson        TakeThisOuTcaaEraseMEspamspam_OUTcolumbus.rr.com

No quote, no nothin'

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2003\02\03@124406 by Charles Anderson

flavicon
face
It's all flight computer control at the time of the breakup.  The pilot's
in control for landing, not reentry.

-Charlie
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 01:03:58AM +1100, Roman Black wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--
Charles Anderson        RemoveMEcaaspamTakeThisOuTcolumbus.rr.com

No quote, no nothin'

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2003 , 2004 only
- Today
- New search...