|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#501
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Stickney wrote: I don't have the Navy stats at hand, but when you consider that they were flying things like the F7U Cutlass, and throwing themselves at ships in the Ocean Sea, their numbers are even worse. Oh yes....the Cutlass... the wonderfully strange and crash-prone Cutlass..... I'm not saying that we shouldn't be striving to be as safe as possible, but it should be realized that no matter how much we work to ameleorate the risks, there will be losses. Orbiters _will_ be lost, adn people will die. This won't matter if it's STS Orbiters, Brand New Capsules, or Zeta Reticulan Flying Disks. That's why I thought NASA set itself up for criticism by implying that the Shuttle was as safe as an airliner early on. Pat |
#502
|
|||
|
|||
rk wrote:
And even in engineering, with the advent of computer tools to do the analysis and even the design work, engineers are starting to be push button operators and do not understand the fundamental concepts and so can not tell when the software tools are in error (which is not infrequent, it's all proprietary code that you are not allowed to see, examine, and verify). I'm not certain that Open Source code would change the situation any. I don't think an engineer is going to open the code to verify, so who does the verification? The companies that will pay for the verification (in house or consultant) are already (AIUI) paying for their own code. That leaves us with the moral equivalent of slashdot ratings, which are informal popularity ratings, not formal evaluations. D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. |
#503
|
|||
|
|||
Derek Lyons wrote:
rk wrote: And even in engineering, with the advent of computer tools to do the analysis and even the design work, engineers are starting to be push button operators and do not understand the fundamental concepts and so can not tell when the software tools are in error (which is not infrequent, it's all proprietary code that you are not allowed to see, examine, and verify). I'm not certain that Open Source code would change the situation any. I don't think an engineer is going to open the code to verify, so who does the verification? The companies that will pay for the verification (in house or consultant) are already (AIUI) paying for their own code. That leaves us with the moral equivalent of slashdot ratings, which are informal popularity ratings, not formal evaluations. All Open Source means is that the people programming the thing will have access and means to understand the program. Completely different skill set from the users. |
#504
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 23:42:06 -0500, "Scott Hedrick"
wrote: "Mary Shafer" wrote in message news In fact, all these problems are so old that we keep declaring them to be solved. Then they sneak back in and bite us. That sounds a lot like Petroski's theme in To Engineer is Human. Not that he was the first to notice the phenomenon, either. There were probably Roman engineers saying the same thing, only in Latin. Mary -- Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer |
#506
|
|||
|
|||
Herb Schaltegger lid wrote in message ...
Have either of you done an Environmental Impact Statement on the effect of dumping 17 tons of extremely toxic chemicals in the South Pacific? Have you looked at the MSDS's and other reference material to determine how much of your "17 tons of extremely toxic chemicals" will survive entry? Have you examined entry plans to determine how much of your "17 tons" will even remain aboard when entry starts? I thought not . . . You want me to do your Environmental Impact Statement for you? Are you offering to pay me for it? I thought not... |
#507
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Mary Shafer wrote:
Actually, it's not. The CF-104 and the F-104N were essentially the same in not having a weapons suite, except that the F-104Ns didn't carry nukes or recce pods either. The F-104N was a limited-number (three, to be precise) modification of the F-104G and was pretty much the only airplane NASA Dryden bought off the production line, directly from the manufacturer. Yeah, but NASA Dryden could be reasonably confident that if it somehow got into a war, they wouldn't be escalating to nuclear levels any time soon. (and there's our bizzare mental image for the day, kids...) -- -Andrew Gray |
#508
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Pat Flannery wrote:
That's why I thought NASA set itself up for criticism by implying that the Shuttle was as safe as an airliner early on. Hmm. "Early on". This wasn't, y'know, a press release after one of those large airliner crashes that the late 1970s seemed to have in profusion, was it? -- -Andrew Gray |
#509
|
|||
|
|||
"Mary Shafer" wrote in message news There were probably Roman engineers saying the same thing, only in Latin. Shades of "History of the World, Part I." |
#510
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Stickney" wrote in message ... Loss rates for early jet fighters were very high, Generally at levels that would give Bob Haller an aneurysm. Do tell. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA Is Not Giving Up On Hubble! (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 2 | May 2nd 04 01:46 PM |
Congressional Resolutions on Hubble Space Telescope | EFLASPO | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | April 1st 04 03:26 PM |
Don't Desert Hubble | Scott M. Kozel | Space Shuttle | 54 | March 5th 04 05:38 PM |
Don't Desert Hubble | Scott M. Kozel | Policy | 46 | February 17th 04 06:33 PM |
Hubble images being colorized to enhance their appeal for public - LA Times | Rusty B | Policy | 4 | September 15th 03 10:38 AM |