A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

ECO sensor



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 30th 06, 07:00 AM posted to sci.space.moderated
Jim Kingdon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default ECO sensor

So over the last year or two there have been a lot of dicsussion of
ECO (engine cutoff) sensors, which figure out whether the shuttle's
external tank has run dry.

The shuttle was originally designed so it could launch with 3 good
sensors (out of 4). This was upgraded to 4 of 4 due to issues with
the electronics upstream from the sensors. Then the electronics were
redesigned to solve said issues. But the flight rule remained at 4 of
4, but with a certain amount of waffling about waivers and such. I've
often wondered why they didn't just go back to the original 3 of 4
flight rule. Apparently they now have:

Shuttle Program Manager Wayne Hale said senior managers today agreed
to press ahead with a launch attempt even if one of four engine cutoff
- ECO - sensors in the ship's external fuel tank fails during the
final hours of the countdown.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts116/061129frr/

  #2  
Old November 30th 06, 01:23 PM posted to sci.space.moderated
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default ECO sensor

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 01:00:34 -0500, in a place far, far away, Jim
Kingdon made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

So over the last year or two there have been a lot of dicsussion of
ECO (engine cutoff) sensors, which figure out whether the shuttle's
external tank has run dry.

The shuttle was originally designed so it could launch with 3 good
sensors (out of 4). This was upgraded to 4 of 4 due to issues with
the electronics upstream from the sensors.


That may have been the excuse, but the real reason was that they just
went through and (over)tightened all the ground rules after Columbia,
to demonstrate how "serious" they were about flight safety.

Then the electronics were
redesigned to solve said issues. But the flight rule remained at 4 of
4, but with a certain amount of waffling about waivers and such. I've
often wondered why they didn't just go back to the original 3 of 4
flight rule. Apparently they now have:

Shuttle Program Manager Wayne Hale said senior managers today agreed
to press ahead with a launch attempt even if one of four engine cutoff
- ECO - sensors in the ship's external fuel tank fails during the
final hours of the countdown.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts116/061129frr/


Yes, they were saying after the last flight that they were finally
going to change that dumb rule. There was no reason they couldn't
have launched on the Friday before.

  #3  
Old December 2nd 06, 06:44 PM posted to sci.space.moderated
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default ECO sensor

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 01:00:34 -0500, in a place far, far away, Jim
Kingdon made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

So over the last year or two there have been a lot of dicsussion of
ECO (engine cutoff) sensors, which figure out whether the shuttle's
external tank has run dry.

The shuttle was originally designed so it could launch with 3 good
sensors (out of 4). This was upgraded to 4 of 4 due to issues with
the electronics upstream from the sensors.


That may have been the excuse, but the real reason was that they just
went through and (over)tightened all the ground rules after Columbia,
to demonstrate how "serious" they were about flight safety.

Then the electronics were
redesigned to solve said issues. But the flight rule remained at 4 of
4, but with a certain amount of waffling about waivers and such. I've
often wondered why they didn't just go back to the original 3 of 4
flight rule. Apparently they now have:

Shuttle Program Manager Wayne Hale said senior managers today agreed
to press ahead with a launch attempt even if one of four engine cutoff
- ECO - sensors in the ship's external fuel tank fails during the
final hours of the countdown.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts116/061129frr/


Yes, they were saying after the last flight that they were finally
going to change that dumb rule. There was no reason they couldn't
have launched on the Friday before.


Rand, do you benefit or profit from making nasa look bad?

  #4  
Old December 2nd 06, 07:26 PM posted to sci.space.moderated
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default ECO sensor

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 12:44:48 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Shuttle Program Manager Wayne Hale said senior managers today agreed
to press ahead with a launch attempt even if one of four engine cutoff
- ECO - sensors in the ship's external fuel tank fails during the
final hours of the countdown.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts116/061129frr/


Yes, they were saying after the last flight that they were finally
going to change that dumb rule. There was no reason they couldn't
have launched on the Friday before.


Rand, do you benefit or profit from making nasa look bad?


Not that I'm aware of. But I don't make NASA look bad. It's moronic
NASA defenders like you (who can't even spell its name properly) and
NASA's own actions that make it look bad. I simply point them out.
Certainly, if I were compensated for NASA looking bad, I'd be a very
wealthy man.

  #5  
Old December 6th 06, 08:21 PM posted to sci.space.moderated
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default ECO sensor

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 12:44:48 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Shuttle Program Manager Wayne Hale said senior managers today agreed
to press ahead with a launch attempt even if one of four engine cutoff
- ECO - sensors in the ship's external fuel tank fails during the
final hours of the countdown.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts116/061129frr/

Yes, they were saying after the last flight that they were finally
going to change that dumb rule. There was no reason they couldn't
have launched on the Friday before.


Rand, do you benefit or profit from making nasa look bad?


Not that I'm aware of. But I don't make NASA look bad. It's moronic
NASA defenders like you (who can't even spell its name properly) and
NASA's own actions that make it look bad. I simply point them out.
Certainly, if I were compensated for NASA looking bad, I'd be a very
wealthy man.


Wrong rand, your responsibility as an author is to answer a logical
request from a reader, as burden of proof is upon you the author to
clarify intentions and statements that can be misleading or
manipulative, ie marketing, (ie boasting if one product or service
isn't good enough, try another). Insulting the reader just
demonstrates you the authors' lack of writing skills to clarify a
readers request, and you the authors inability to manage a logical
valid question, and not a reflection of the reader.

So once again rand do you professionally benefit or profit from making
nasa look bad, because if you are in the private industry or consult in
the private industry then you do benefit from making nasa look bad.

 




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
Is it the heater or the sensor? Brian Gaff Space Shuttle 2 July 2nd 06 12:06 PM
ECO sensor toggling? snidely Space Shuttle 0 July 30th 05 03:51 AM
Shuttle sensor details Pat Flannery Policy 43 July 26th 05 02:23 AM
Low Level Fuel Sensor Walter L. Preuninger II Space Shuttle 12 July 18th 05 07:11 PM
KLI-5001E sensor AnteroMetso CCD Imaging 0 June 13th 05 10:50 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:29 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.