#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |