A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hubble to be abandoned



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #501  
Old February 17th 04, 04:36 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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  
Old February 17th 04, 07:38 PM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 17th 04, 07:42 PM
Charles Buckley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 17th 04, 08:17 PM
Mary Shafer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 17th 04, 09:26 PM
Edward Wright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 17th 04, 10:36 PM
Andrew Gray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 17th 04, 10:38 PM
Andrew Gray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 17th 04, 10:57 PM
Scott Hedrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old February 17th 04, 10:58 PM
Scott Hedrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.