faulty fuel sensor - oh puleeze

Legitimate question but a strange place to pose it...here in the land of
multiple engines, MELs, backup vacs, redundant electrical systems,
multiple 430s, GPS, VOR, ADF, and Loran (why not keep all of it?)

Perhaps I'm thinking of rec.aviation.ifr...


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.

"Dave S" wrote in message
ink.net...


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.


Where did you get that number?

Icebound wrote:


Where did you get that number?


One of the discovery channel programs on the soviet space program, which
I have not independently verified.

Dave

So THAT'S why they say to always visually check the fuel level! How quickly
people forget from their primary training...

I think the Shuttle's fuel sensors were made by the same subcontractor that
made the fuel gauges in my Warrior.

Marco

"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.





Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"Dave S" wrote in message
ink.net...


Icebound wrote:


Where did you get that number?


One of the discovery channel programs on the soviet space program, which I
have not independently verified.



http://www.jamesoberg.com/

James Oberg gives a pretty detailed account of Soviet failures and myths. I
have not been able to find an actual "number" in his on-line stuff (buy the
books, I guess), but the implication is that some rumors of USSR space
deaths are overblown... and he also states that some is simply not known.

Now since he often appears on Discovery, so that "100" figure may be his (or
NOT), but his chapter at:
http://www.jamesoberg.com/usd10.html
does not seem to imply a number anywhere near that.

Dave wrote:
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.

I believe that number includes ground fatalities.

Hilton

Hey, if my butt's on top of that firecracker, I want EVERYTHING in the green
before they light the fuse.

Jim


Why so much redundancy ? ; the cost of scrubbing the launch must have been
enormous.

"Granite" wrote in message news:m7nBe.146267

.......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 !


What a man!!!!

Granite wrote:

let'sÂ*go
haul the mail

Is the UPS taking over for NASA? Considering the role played by the post in
aviation, that may not be a bad deal.

- Andrew

The simple answer is that the sensors are used to shut the engines down
before fuel exhaustion. The Space Shuttle Main Engine uses turbopumps
(that also burn liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen) to pump sufficient
quantities of propellents to make it all go. The issue is that
turbopumps behave very badly, even destroying themselves if they are
run try, especially if at full power. It is apparently the nature of
the beasts. The sensors cue systems that begin to throttle the engines
back to about 65% power at which point the SSME can be shut down safely
and without damage.

Consider visiting the Science Space Shuttle News Group. Several people
asked the same question and the issue gets explained pretty clearly.
Someone noted that their car's fuel pump had a similar feature so to
protect it from burning itself out from running dry. Just like us, the
astronauts do not have the option of pulling the silly thing over to
the side of the road if something important decides to break.

blue skies to you all

John