If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
faulty fuel sensor - oh puleeze
Discovery can't take off because of a bad fuel sensor ? Are they kidding us
? The crew is already strapped in, number one for departure, cocked and loaded. We just put gas in the thing. I saw the line guys top the tanks earlier in the day. Stick the tank, placard the gas gauge inop and let's go haul the mail ! Now it takes three or four days to replace it ? They need to find a new A&P, preferably non-union. We are never going to get commercial space travel at this rate. I'm sure the FAA is to blame too ... somehow. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The tanks contain hydrogen and oxygen. A combination of the two power it.
If it runs out of either, it can blow, or overspool the engine - either would be fatal. So it needs accurate fuel sensors - unless you want to fly it. Crew safety is paramount - and right now it's compromised. Tony C-GICE In article , "Granite" wrote: Discovery can't take off because of a bad fuel sensor ? Are they kidding us ? The crew is already strapped in, number one for departure, cocked and loaded. We just put gas in the thing. I saw the line guys top the tanks earlier in the day. Stick the tank, placard the gas gauge inop and let's go haul the mail ! Now it takes three or four days to replace it ? They need to find a new A&P, preferably non-union. We are never going to get commercial space travel at this rate. I'm sure the FAA is to blame too ... somehow. -- Tony Roberts PP-ASEL VFR OTT Night Cessna 172H C-GICE |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"tony roberts" wrote in message
news:nospam-33EADD.23165714072005@shawnews... [...] Crew safety is paramount - and right now it's compromised. Surely the post to which you replied wasn't meant to be serious. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Granite" wrote in message .. . Discovery can't take off because of a bad fuel sensor ? Are they kidding us ? The crew is already strapped in, number one for departure, cocked and loaded. We just put gas in the thing. I saw the line guys top the tanks earlier in the day. Stick the tank, placard the gas gauge inop and let's go haul the mail ! Now it takes three or four days to replace it ? They need to find a new A&P, preferably non-union. We are never going to get commercial space travel at this rate. I'm sure the FAA is to blame too ... somehow. Depends. It was reported here, UK, that 1 of 4 sensors failed. Why so much redundancy ? ; the cost of scrubbing the launch must have been enormous. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
S. wrote: Why so much redundancy ? ; the cost of scrubbing the launch must have been enormous. As is the percieved cost of another failure. Nobody wants to be the one who says "Go" and then something bad happens. Dave |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
As a general rule among bureaucrats, you can never be faulted for
saying, NO.... Now, having made this insightful contribution, I wll say that the perception among NASA is that losing another crew will be the end of NASA as we/they know it... No manager in NASA is going to voluntarily be the fall guy who says, "Ahhh what the hell, launch it!"...... Understandable... A perception problem was created by NASA when they worked hard for decades to foster the belief that NASA is so good that launching to orbit is just routine... Sitting on top of a half million pounds of explosives, then igniting a 'controlled explosion' in a container just below the tanks of explosives, is never going to be routine... Nor is slamming into the atmosphere at Mach 17.5 and having the leading edges instantly hit 3,000 F... But, I would much rather be an astronaut who depends upon NASA engineers to launch his tender body, than have been a cosmonaut under the USSR's space program... Look up the available footage of some of their more spectacular failures... denny |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:57:50 GMT, Dave S
wrote: S. wrote: Why so much redundancy ? ; the cost of scrubbing the launch must have been enormous. As is the percieved cost of another failure. Nobody wants to be the one who says "Go" and then something bad happens. Exactly. If there is another shuttle disaster, the program may not ever recover. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"S." wrote:
the cost of scrubbing the launch must have been enormous. $600K, according to the news. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"S." wrote:
the cost of scrubbing the launch must have been enormous. The cost of launching and potentially losing the shuttle would have been much, much greater, both in terms of dollars and a country's lost confidence in the space program. -- Peter ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Denny wrote: But, I would much rather be an astronaut who depends upon NASA engineers to launch his tender body, than have been a cosmonaut under the USSR's space program... Look up the available footage of some of their more spectacular failures... denny I want to say they have a body count of over 100 with regards to their early space program. Dave |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Time, running out of fuel and fuel gauges | Dylan Smith | Piloting | 29 | February 3rd 08 07:04 PM |
fuel leak or auxiliary fuel pump malfunction? | [email protected] | Owning | 7 | December 17th 06 12:57 PM |
Replacing fuel cut-off valve with non-a/c part??? | Michael Horowitz | Owning | 46 | January 15th 05 10:20 PM |
Is Your Airplane Susceptible To Mis Fu eling? A Simple Test For Fuel Contamination. | Nathan Young | Piloting | 4 | June 14th 04 06:13 PM |
Yo! Fuel Tank! | Veeduber | Home Built | 15 | October 25th 03 02:57 AM |