A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

MSNBC: "Space station mission opposed"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old October 28th 03, 05:37 AM
David M. Palmer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC: "Space station mission opposed"

In article , Sh'maal
wrote:

The warnings and objections are real. Note however there was not a NOGO on
the flight, only the increment and the return flight (manifest). The med-ops
folks (CHeCs, TEPC, TVIS, etc) have a low priority on manifest, to obtain a
higher priority their equipment must be declared by them to have a higher
criticality. However when it is declared to have a higher criticality then
it must also pass a more rigorous design review (MTBF analysis, MTTR, etc).
The trade-off is that if the equipment is mission critical then it must be
shown that it will work. A casual examination of the the documentation on
NASA watch shows that the med-ops declared criticality matches the
equipment's operability.


So basically what you are saying is that they can only fly unimportant
equipment, because if it were important it wouldn't be good enough.

--
David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)
  #32  
Old October 31st 03, 01:51 AM
Sh'maal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC: "Space station mission opposed"

Yes, although I would phrase it as "they only CHOOSE TO fly unimportant
equipment, because if it were important it wouldn't be good enough.


"David M. Palmer" wrote in message
...
In article , Sh'maal
wrote:

The warnings and objections are real. Note however there was not a NOGO

on
the flight, only the increment and the return flight (manifest). The

med-ops
folks (CHeCs, TEPC, TVIS, etc) have a low priority on manifest, to

obtain a
higher priority their equipment must be declared by them to have a

higher
criticality. However when it is declared to have a higher criticality

then
it must also pass a more rigorous design review (MTBF analysis, MTTR,

etc).
The trade-off is that if the equipment is mission critical then it must

be
shown that it will work. A casual examination of the the documentation

on
NASA watch shows that the med-ops declared criticality matches the
equipment's operability.


So basically what you are saying is that they can only fly unimportant
equipment, because if it were important it wouldn't be good enough.

--
David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)



 




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
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) Stuf4 Space Shuttle 150 July 28th 04 07:30 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 April 2nd 04 12:01 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 February 2nd 04 04:33 AM
International Space Station Marks Five Years In Orbit Ron Baalke Space Shuttle 2 November 20th 03 04:09 PM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 September 12th 03 01:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:48 AM.


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.