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.

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

"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.

"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.

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

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

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.

"S." wrote:
the cost of scrubbing the launch must have been
enormous.

$600K, according to the news.

"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 =----

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