Re: Er, Uh, Kinda important

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 18:18:55 -0700, deans@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>> Almost. Close enough for the sake of this conversation. But.... What do
>> you think happens if the engines shut down before the shuttle has reached
>> a high enough altitude to break free of gravity and remain in space? The
>> problem which occurred last week was that the sensor indicated the tank
>> was empty (when it really wasn't), and therefore would have shut down the
>> engines. Guess what happens next...

> Yes, I am fully aware that the function of these sensors is important.
> Good thing three out of four work. We just wouldn't have redundancy
> for a mission while they fix it.

With a sensor of this magnitude, you don't go on a mission without
redundancy. It's really that simple.

>> That is a VERY over-simplified view of things. The reality of it is that
>> you DO NOT launch if there are things which you KNOW are problems. That
>> way if things go wrong it is only because of things you did not know about
>> beforehand. The real name of this process is: "Operational Risk
>> Management" (ORM). It's how things are done.

> The real name of this process is "Cover Your Ass (CYA)". A
> spineless CYA culture is incapable of simultaneously being a Can-Do
> culture that makes things happen. Risks need to be taken or progress
> slows to a halt. People need to start getting mad about the lack of
> America's progress in space instead of the shuttle disasters.

There is some truth to that, but there is more to it. In this day and
age, politics and public opinion play more of a part than they should (or
used to). Imagine the public outcry if another Colombia happened with
this mission. Public outcry means Congress doesn't fund next year.
That's reality.

>> Wrong again. China is not currently anywhere near our level. The real
>> point here is that there is not really a "space race" any more. What are
>> they going to do, go to the moon?

> You are right. We are not in a space race. We are just sitting there
> and China is rapidly advancing. China IS going to go to the moon.

Assuming that is true (and I don't know that it is), how does it hurt us
if they go to the moon? We've already been there.

> again. The shuttle should have been replaced after 10 years with a
> better vehicle and then the vehicle after that should have been
> replaced by now. We should have long ago colonized the moon and
> perhaps Mars. We should have completed the superconducting
> supercollider. The list goes on and on. I am happy to see bush
> setting some meager goals in the distant future but the fact is we have
> been sitting on our hands. We are just sitting here waiting to be
> passed. Unless we change our attitude it will happen.

Most of this I agree with. I also would have liked to see us do much more
with the space program over the last 30 years. What you are missing here
is that the reason it hasn't happened is not the fault of NASA. It is the
fault of a Congress that won't fund things, which is a result of the
general public not giving a damn about space exploration. The average
American today is more interested in social programs, tree hugging, and
tax evasion. That is where the real fault is, right there. The American
public. If you want things to change, you must begin there.

> Good. I run Fedora or Red Hat Enterprise Linux on all of my systems.
> (Except I have a Mac and a Windows 2000 system specifically for testing
> setup in VMWare) I do some software development from time to time. What
> is your profession?

Hmmm.... so why do you post from Google Groups? Get a real newsreader.
As for me, I'm an electronics engineer, closely associated with the
federal government... ;)

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

.

Relevant Pages

  • Krauthammer now, Krauthammer then
    ... Why a Moon Mission Is Worth the Money ... quite as beautiful as the space station and the shuttle that services ... You cannot justify a $17 billion NASA budget or $6 billion for manned ... space shuttle never was. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: An alternative to Orion/Constellation?
    ... while the Shuttle carries it's destination on its own back. ... First to the moon, then maybe Venus, and eventually Mars. ... where he said he had studied how much Rockwell has reused technology inside ... the top of my head since abandonment of a system is not an incremental improvement. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Ares vs DIRECT
    ... we are flying the shuttle and the EELVs! ... except for the easy stuff, like the avionics and engines, for instance. ... are the space shuttle main engines - SSMEs. ... There are no physical barriers to SSTO flight. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Secret 2-stage-to-orbit "Blackstar" Spaceplane.
    ... The wings and undercarriage are actually quite small for such a vehicle ... LOX/Keronsene engines have twice the thrust to weight ratio of LOX/LH ... The very hot exhaust of the turbo pump turbines is ... Shuttle Main Engines. ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: We, first loosers for 100 years.
    ... After that was accomplished, we realized that when you get right down to it the Moon is a pretty boring, expensive, and largely useless place to go. ... Were Rome really shown was in the caliber of its practical engineers; the didn't spend their time working out obscure mathematical formula, the figured out how exactly to build things that were very strong and durable. ... We have years of data from Skylab, from Mir, from Shuttle, from LDEF, and we do NOTHING with it. ... political will to do anything difficult, to dream big dreams, or to do anything more daring than curbside recycling. ...
    (sci.space.moderated)