hello NASA, using the old junk box?

From NY times today:

quote
Workers also replaced the suspect part of the chain of electronics between
controllers and the sensor, known as the point sensor box. The component,
like many parts of the shuttle, is based on 1980's technology and still
uses components like transistors soldered onto circuit boards. (Today,
semiconductor technology places millions of transistors within a single
chip.)

Some of the transistors, which are made by Fairchild Semiconductor, came
from a lot that was suspected of having manufacturing problems, said Steve
Poulos, the manager of NASA's vehicle engineering office.
/quote

Really, man with a budget like that you'd expect them to have somebody
redesign those units.
That would only cost a couple of thousand, and less then the travel expenses
of all the people involved discussing it.

I am not sure I take NASA seriously anymore.
You must be REALLY of your rocker to use 'reject' parts after all that happened
and with that much money available.
Where did the money REALLY go!

THIS requires an investigation!

"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
news:1121330253.cbbadad49191c0a4ea4827b0c838c237@t eranews...
From NY times today:

quote
Workers also replaced the suspect part of the chain of electronics
between
controllers and the sensor, known as the point sensor box. The component,
like many parts of the shuttle, is based on 1980's technology and still
uses components like transistors soldered onto circuit boards. (Today,
semiconductor technology places millions of transistors within a single
chip.)

Some of the transistors, which are made by Fairchild Semiconductor, came
from a lot that was suspected of having manufacturing problems, said Steve
Poulos, the manager of NASA's vehicle engineering office.
/quote

Really, man with a budget like that you'd expect them to have somebody
redesign those units.
That would only cost a couple of thousand, and less then the travel
expenses
of all the people involved discussing it.

I am not sure I take NASA seriously anymore.
You must be REALLY of your rocker to use 'reject' parts after all that
happened
and with that much money available.
Where did the money REALLY go!

THIS requires an investigation!



"A couple of thousand......." Um, yeah. Like you have a clue about it.

Ken

On a sunny day (Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:49:40 +1200) it happened "Ken Taylor"
wrote in :

"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
news:1121330253.cbbadad49191c0a4ea4827b0c838c237@ teranews...
From NY times today:

quote
Workers also replaced the suspect part of the chain of electronics
between
controllers and the sensor, known as the point sensor box. The component,
like many parts of the shuttle, is based on 1980's technology and still
uses components like transistors soldered onto circuit boards. (Today,
semiconductor technology places millions of transistors within a single
chip.)

Some of the transistors, which are made by Fairchild Semiconductor, came
from a lot that was suspected of having manufacturing problems, said Steve
Poulos, the manager of NASA's vehicle engineering office.
/quote

Really, man with a budget like that you'd expect them to have somebody
redesign those units.
That would only cost a couple of thousand, and less then the travel
expenses
of all the people involved discussing it.

I am not sure I take NASA seriously anymore.
You must be REALLY of your rocker to use 'reject' parts after all that
happened
and with that much money available.
Where did the money REALLY go!

THIS requires an investigation!



"A couple of thousand......." Um, yeah. Like you have a clue about it.
Yep I do, I am electronic designer.
And that is kids stuff.
But maybe NASA fired all E designers long ago, and replaced with 'managers' or
idiots like you?
Complete morons to save on a 12 cent part.
From a billion $$ project.
Same guys who spend 51 billion on an aniti missile system that does not work?
**** off.

"A couple of thousand......." Um, yeah. Like you have a clue about it.
Yep I do, I am electronic designer.

Obviously not a professional one. Or maybe you just work out of the
side of a van selling breadboarded products.

Redesigning any of the consumer products I work with to, say, change
one transistor type, is a minimum cost of six to nine months and
$100,000 of direct costs in engineering, QA testing, FCC
recertification, perhaps also UL relisting (that is an instant ~$35,000
cost for our type of product), and more.

That's merely to meet ISO900x, FCC and AHJ requirements. NASA's
application also has to meet aviation safety standards. Even if the
change is as trivial as just switching to a different transistor
vendor, I'd be willing to bet the costs START at $250,000 and a year's
engineering and qual time - and that's probably a conservative
estimate.

wrote:

"A couple of thousand......." Um, yeah. Like you have a clue about it.
Yep I do, I am electronic designer.

Obviously not a professional one. Or maybe you just work out of the
side of a van selling breadboarded products.

Redesigning any of the consumer products I work with to, say, change
one transistor type, is a minimum cost of six to nine months and
$100,000 of direct costs in engineering, QA testing, FCC
recertification, perhaps also UL relisting (that is an instant ~$35,000
cost for our type of product), and more.

That's merely to meet ISO900x, FCC and AHJ requirements. NASA's
application also has to meet aviation safety standards. Even if the
change is as trivial as just switching to a different transistor
vendor, I'd be willing to bet the costs START at $250,000 and a year's
engineering and qual time - and that's probably a conservative
estimate.

Which is why they continue to use junk parts. Too expensive to replace with
something that works reliably on account of the paperwork.

That's why light aviation aircraft still use carburettors with their
attendant intake icing and falling out of the sky problems when a simple
replacement with fuel injection would fix the problem. It's too expensive to
certify the safer solution often.

Graahm

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

wrote:

[snipped]

That's why light aviation aircraft still use carburettors with their
attendant intake icing and falling out of the sky problems when a simple
replacement with fuel injection would fix the problem. It's too expensive
to
certify the safer solution often.

Graahm



I'm not sure, but don't light aircraft engines have to run without battery
power.

Graham H

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:49:40 +1200) it happened "Ken Taylor"
wrote in :


"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
news:1121330253.cbbadad49191c0a4ea4827b0c838c237 @teranews...

From NY times today:

quote
Workers also replaced the suspect part of the chain of electronics

between

controllers and the sensor, known as the point sensor box. The component,
like many parts of the shuttle, is based on 1980's technology and still
uses components like transistors soldered onto circuit boards. (Today,
semiconductor technology places millions of transistors within a single
chip.)

Some of the transistors, which are made by Fairchild Semiconductor, came
from a lot that was suspected of having manufacturing problems, said Steve
Poulos, the manager of NASA's vehicle engineering office.
/quote

Really, man with a budget like that you'd expect them to have somebody
redesign those units.
That would only cost a couple of thousand, and less then the travel

expenses

of all the people involved discussing it.

I am not sure I take NASA seriously anymore.
You must be REALLY of your rocker to use 'reject' parts after all that

happened

and with that much money available.
Where did the money REALLY go!

THIS requires an investigation!



"A couple of thousand......." Um, yeah. Like you have a clue about it.

Yep I do, I am electronic designer.

Obviously not a very good one if you can come out with crap like you posted.

And that is kids stuff.
But maybe NASA fired all E designers long ago, and replaced with 'managers' or
idiots like you?
Complete morons to save on a 12 cent part.

*sigh* it's not the cost of the part. Just how many FMEACAs and
certification processes have you been through?

How expensive would it be to put an IC through a full FMEACA? It'd take
years. I use to be a design engineer working on Safety Critical System
(Level 4), it's damned expensive to just replace a part

From a billion $$ project.
Same guys who spend 51 billion on an aniti missile system that does not work?
**** off.

Says he who is talking out of his arse

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:20:25 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:


wrote:

"A couple of thousand......." Um, yeah. Like you have a clue about it.
Yep I do, I am electronic designer.

Obviously not a professional one. Or maybe you just work out of the
side of a van selling breadboarded products.

Redesigning any of the consumer products I work with to, say, change
one transistor type, is a minimum cost of six to nine months and
$100,000 of direct costs in engineering, QA testing, FCC
recertification, perhaps also UL relisting (that is an instant ~$35,000
cost for our type of product), and more.

That's merely to meet ISO900x, FCC and AHJ requirements. NASA's
application also has to meet aviation safety standards. Even if the
change is as trivial as just switching to a different transistor
vendor, I'd be willing to bet the costs START at $250,000 and a year's
engineering and qual time - and that's probably a conservative
estimate.

Which is why they continue to use junk parts. Too expensive to replace with
something that works reliably on account of the paperwork.

That's why light aviation aircraft still use carburettors with their
attendant intake icing and falling out of the sky problems when a simple
replacement with fuel injection would fix the problem. It's too expensive to
certify the safer solution often.

I am guessing a $1000 redesign will probably take 10 years and
millions of dollars to test and certify .... Well it would if you use
the software testers I used to work with....

On a sunny day (14 Jul 2005 03:04:30 -0700) it happened wrote
in . com:



"A couple of thousand......." Um, yeah. Like you have a clue about it.
Yep I do, I am electronic designer.

Obviously not a professional one. Or maybe you just work out of the
side of a van selling breadboarded products.

Redesigning any of the consumer products I work with
------------------------^^^^^^^
Not only is that bull, NASA space shuttle and related stuff is no consumer
project.
For example (consumer) changing a transistor type will likely need no
re-certification.
In INDUSTRIAL design it will not even need a discussion on a lever higher
then the local technician (looking it up in a equivalent list).
In an organization that only builds specific EXPERIMENTAL stuff it could
be considered part of the design improvements, as as such come under different
rules.
And as AERONAUTICS replacing a transistors with parts from a unit that
is known to be defective is a crime.

That's merely to meet ISO900x, FCC and AHJ requirements. NASA's
application also has to meet aviation safety standards. Even if the
change is as trivial as just switching to a different transistor
vendor, I'd be willing to bet the costs START at $250,000 and a year's
engineering and qual time - and that's probably a conservative
estimate.
Yea, the world has come to an end, for the US and NASA at least.

wrote in message
ups.com...


"A couple of thousand......." Um, yeah. Like you have a clue about it.
Yep I do, I am electronic designer.

Obviously not a professional one. Or maybe you just work out of the
side of a van selling breadboarded products.

Redesigning any of the consumer products I work with to, say, change
one transistor type, is a minimum cost of six to nine months and
$100,000 of direct costs in engineering, QA testing, FCC
recertification, perhaps also UL relisting (that is an instant ~$35,000
cost for our type of product), and more.

That's merely to meet ISO900x, FCC and AHJ requirements. NASA's
application also has to meet aviation safety standards. Even if the
change is as trivial as just switching to a different transistor
vendor, I'd be willing to bet the costs START at $250,000 and a year's
engineering and qual time - and that's probably a conservative
estimate.


Wouldn't it also have to be specifically space certified, and hence tested
against long term radiation exposure? Also, I would have thought that the
repeated acceleration (G force) testing of a space certified part would be
have to be far more extensive. $250k as a conservative starting point looks
about right.