On Fri, 06 Jun 2003 19:50:17 +0100, Ian Woollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Yes, but how quickly the equipment ages is all part of launch experience >too. When I say launch a/ lot/, I mean, wear out the vehicle in 4 months ;-) You don't want to wear it out that fast. If you do, you're running too close to your margins, and you're going to fail something in flight. (Hugh Cook has a good line last week: the objective of verification is to ensure that the parts count does not change during flight.) >Whilst complacency played a small part with the Shuttle mishaps, I would >argue that the root cause of the two major accidents were design faults. There's enough fault to go around with both Shuttle mishaps. Given that they chose to live with the design decisions their forbears made, they needed to be REALLY persnickety on the safety issues. They weren't quite persnickety enough. So far, though, except for one NASA manager who reversed the engineers' decision to ask the Air Force for a look at Columbia, it looks like a simple aw shit, as in, "Aw shit, we thought it was safe." >DC-X; well that was done on an absolute shoe-string, I don't think you >can draw any huge conclusions. No, but maybe a small one. The guy that failed to connect the landing gear line, and the guy that checked his work? I have to wonder how they were doing on crew rest that day. I'm thinking not so good. -R -- "We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true." -- Robert Wilensky, UC Berkeley _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
