Subj : NASA, shuttle, anyone? To : WAYNE CHIRNSIDE From : mark lewis Date : Sun Aug 14 2005 09:24 pm -> -> CA> Have been a bit surprised at the lack of interest in -> -> CA> this echo of the sloppiness of the recent space -> -> CA> shuttle launch? -> -> sloppiness?? -> WC> Yup. -> WC> Rules stated no launch without all four tank fuel sensors -> WC> working. -> ok... all four were working when they tested and launched... WC> All four worked intermittently, not according to what i've seen... it was the backup sensor to the backup sensor that failed in the testing done during the launch countdown... they were unable to reproduce the failure during later testing after going into the system to try to track down the failure... WC> one of the hardest dorts of faults to track down from my personal WC> electronic experience. yes, mine too... WC> Had the sensors failed again as they had before as nothing had been WC> done to fix them it's possible the sensors would have indicated WC> fuel it was running out. WC> This would lead to the flame from the engine nozzels being sucked WC> back into the combution chambers, BOOM. wrong... the indication of lack of fuel would shut down the engines and they would not have made it to orbit... the failure was a "no fuel" indication when the tanks had fuel... not an indication of fuel when there was none... WC> This is generally considered a bad thing. WC> Also a repair to a dent in the shuttle's tank was repaired after WC> the foam was removed. Foam was replaced but it wa sdeemed WC> unnecessary to inspect the affected area. WC> As it happens foam from this area detached during launch to orbit. i have the video and pictures... the problem i have with what you are saying is that the same thing happened on the other side of the tank where the other SRB was mounted... so that's two foam detachments... not just one... methinks that some are confusing some things... -> WC> Shuttle not rolled back but delayed. -> so... don't have to rollback to fix a problem... WC> Don't worry they didn't. i'm not worried... i was saying that there does not have to be a rollback to fix a problem... i left off the word "you" in front of "don't"... WC> They flew the shuttle without a clue as to what had caused the WC> problem. -> WC> Intermittent problem with the faulty fuel sensor never pinned down -> WC> it happened to be working when they launched after deciding to -> WC> override their own safety rules. -> when did they decide to override their rules? i don't recall that -> and i watched and recorded most all of the NASA TV broadcasts... WC> It was repeatedly announced after the initial delay and after they WC> failed to pin down the intermittent fuel sensor problem, it was announced that they were overridding their safety rules?? i definitely do not remember that specific wording... WC> It just happpened the sensor didn't fail during the runup to WC> launch, very fortuitous. are you positive that it was a sensor failure? they aren't... -> WC> Now the tank's burned up returning to Earth we'll never know why -> WC> the sensor malfunctioned. -> one suggestion was a ground problem because the problem never -> happened after the initial discovery... could also have been a -> loose connection... either way, they apparently fixed it while -> getting to it and studying it... WC> Ground problems are FAR from trivial as an electrical _circuit_ WC> requires a return to function. In my personal experience ground WC> problems are actually the worst sort of problem. yes, they can be... i've done my fair share of them over the years ;) WC> I spent months tracking down an intermittent ground problem in a WC> stereo amplifier once. -> what else was sloppy?? WC> See above. besides that... )\/(ark * Origin: (1:3634/12) .