|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
WILL THE ATV DELIVER?
Sounds like a progress. Havent they been around for many years? Why not test it
in the US? We should have a big enough chamber. Oh well this is how so many spacecraft fail inadquate testing to save money Lets hope a failure if it occurs doesnt take out the station. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
WILL THE ATV DELIVER?
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
WILL THE ATV DELIVER?
My god, you are such an maddening, one-track-mind idiot. Do you pray for failures every day? Do you ever think of anything else? Well after hubbles mirror, various mars probes and a variety of space failures most of which can be traced back to inadquate testing I would think all up testing would be mandatory when something is working in close quarters with the ISS, since ts irreplaceable. Positive thinking is fine but relying on it rather than testing is foolhardy. Sadly many posters here are so go nasa they lack the ability to see what can go wrong, even after it bites them. Geez even Columbia loss can at least be partially blamed on ZERO testing of the RCC panels. I can imagine oh they are fine and sturdy as the tiles, dont worry about it! YOU THINK THIS IS THE WAY SPACE SHOULD BE DONE? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
WILL THE ATV DELIVER?
ojunk (Dave Fowler) writes:
From: (Hallerb) Lets hope a failure if it occurs doesnt take out the station. My god, you are such an maddening, one-track-mind idiot. That sums it up rather nicely. Jeff -- Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
WILL THE ATV DELIVER?
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
WILL THE ATV DELIVER?
They did testing on Hubble's mirror. In fact, they did at lest two tests on the mirror to assess its shape. One test said the mirror was ground wrong, the other said it was o.k. (due to a problem with the assembly of some equipment). In the end, the launch of Hubble's misshapen mirror was a management failure. The results of the test that indicated a problem were ignored, instead of being investigated further to determine the cause. All the testing in the world won't help if management ignores the results of the tests. Sometimes, management "updates" the requirements after testing, otherwise the tests would have to be listed as failed. Other times, management is a bit more open and grants "waivers" for failed tests (just look at the noise environment aboard ISS and you'll see this practice in spades). To which failed Mars probe are you referring? There were several and they all failed for different reasons. The "faster, better, cheaper" failures were largely the result of engineers doing what they thought they could with the "faster, better, cheaper" mandate. Unfortunately, many engineers didn't believe in that you could do all three at once, which is why certain types of testing got deleted from the plans (it certainly kept the schedule on track and the budget down). Since management could easily control the budget and schedule, it's no surprise that "better" (quality) got sacrificed. I see this trade-off on every project I work on (engineering software), but we refer to it as trading off schedule, resource, or scope (high quality is always demanded of all our projects). If a project is late, you can cut the scope of the project, slip the schedule (increases the cost), or add more resources to the project (increases the cost). The bigger "mega-project" Mars failure was, from dim memory, a fairly complex failure mode in the propulsion system that just wasn't understood until the clarity of hindsight kicked in. The real failure here was putting "all your eggs in one basket". The failure of a "mega-project" is necessarily more painful than the failure of a smaller, less ambitious mission. Jeff Well in hubbles case the testing was incomplete. One more basic test and it would of been clear it was ground wrong. FBC got us the lander that cut thrust before landing when the vibration of its legs opening was mistaken for ground contact. That could of clearly showed up on ground testing. Now we have a workhorse vehicle interfacing with ISS. Whats the latest cost oif ISS anyway if it had to be replaced? Complete including all shuttle launches? So they said well we cant test it all up. Thats fine but I thought there was a testing facility in the US that could do this. If this skipped test results in the loss of ISS or a shuttle or both how will you justify it? Not testing adquately is only ok if failure is allright too... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
WILL THE ATV DELIVER?
"Hallerb" wrote in message ... Well in hubbles case the testing was incomplete. One more basic test and it would of been clear it was ground wrong. You know Bob, someone who constantly makes the same grammatical mistake after having it pointed out numerous times is in no position to be criticizing others. And again, it's not about the testing. It's about Management. One of the tests already indicated a problem and that was ignored. Not testing adquately is only ok if failure is allright too... Guess what, sometimes failure IS all right. I'm in the middle of writing a failover process for a critical business process at my place of employment. Ideally one solution would be best. It would also far more than the company can afford. So the option is to go with a riskier solution. But one we can afford. So, tell me, should the company go with the one they can't afford and end up filing for bankruptcy, or go with the one they can afford and hopefully be able to upgrade when money becomes less tight? Life is a series of trade-offs. No matter what. Guess what, the shuttle will NEVER be perfectly safe. No one here in their right mind is saying it ever will be. What they are saying is it can be made "safe enough." And so far Congress has said, "This is safe enough, here's all the money we're giving you." You have a problem with that, write Congress. They've got the checkbook. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
WILL THE ATV DELIVER?
You know Bob, someone who constantly makes the same grammatical mistake after having it pointed out numerous times is in no position to be criticizing others. Honestly all of you know my grammar isnt good. But I am interested in space which is more than 99% of americans, or so it seems...... And again, it's not about the testing. It's about Management. One of the tests already indicated a problem and that was ignored. My recollection was the test results were mixed, a futher test was nixed to save money. Not testing adquately is only ok if failure is allright too... Guess what, sometimes failure IS all right. I'm in the middle of writing a failover process for a critical business process at my place of employment. Ideally one solution would be best. It would also far more than the company can afford. So the option is to go with a riskier solution. But one we can afford. So, tell me, should the company go with the one they can't afford and end up filing for bankruptcy, or go with the one they can afford and hopefully be able to upgrade when money becomes less tight? If the failure can cause them to go bankupt or ut of business they need to find another way. If the vehcle damages ISS or takes it out altogether thats not worth the risk. Life is a series of trade-offs. No matter what. Guess what, the shuttle will NEVER be perfectly safe. No one here in their right mind is saying it ever will be. What they are saying is it can be made "safe enough." And so far Congress has said, "This is safe enough, here's all the money we're giving you." You have a problem with that, write Congress. They've got the checkbook. Look FAILURE from something totally unexpected is one thing, failure from lack of proper testing is what gives us failed Mars probes and others. My point is that when compared to a giga billion station a 100 million for proper testing is a drop in the bucket. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
WILL THE ATV DELIVER?
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
From Russia, Without Love | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 72 | December 5th 03 12:40 AM |
How do they deliver a newsgroup from Alan Erskine?? | Charleston | Space Shuttle | 0 | November 26th 03 06:05 PM |