On Sunday 11 March 2001 1539, kilopascal wrote:
> 2001-03-11
>
> And, why is that Jim?
I don't know what you mean by "that", John. The computer? The last I
heard it was because the pentiums had not been operational long enough
to estimate their failure rates nor had they been tested in high
radiation fields. (With their smaller scaling they are more likely to
suffer catastrophic radiation damage.)
> Also, I was referring to documents used here on the ground too. Any
> manual that is written that mentioned feet or inches, etc., can be
> translated or converted to SI by a program that seeks out terms like
> "feet", "ft", " ' ", etc and if a number precedes it, to convert that
> number to metres, etc. Mechanical drawings used in the design of
> components still in inches, can also be converted to millimetres
> before being manufactured. Those that can easily be changed can be
> done now. Those that can't can wait.
....
I hope I don't dismay you, but nobody's going to take that large
volume of drawings, manuals, procedures, etc. and just run them through
a "search and replace" computer program. When we shut the hatches and
submerge, there are people inside that submarine. When that NASA guy
runs out there with the match and lights those SRBs and MEs, there are
people strapped to that contraption. It would be disasterous for a
nuclear reactor to have an accident in port and it would be disasterous
to have that bundle of four tubes, three of which are full of fuel,
corkscrew back into Orlando at ignition.
Nope, ain't nothing going to change for real until a lot of people
have double checked each other and the computers to make sure it all
makes sense and will work. And then they're going to want to run a
zillion tests under controlled conditions. Even then there's no
guarantee. I was the Ships Diving Officer for the Alpha sea trials for
the USS Richard B. Russell (SSN 687). The shipyard's
computer-calculated trim numbers did not match the ones I came up with
(using pencil and paper) based on my submarine experience and that of
others. It came down to my decision whether to go with my numbers or
the shipyard's when it came time to have the proper amount of water in
the variable ballast tanks for our initial dive -- with ADM Rickover on
board! I went with my numbers which really p.o.'d the shipyard and
since I was only a lieutenant at the time. Upon diving we found that my
calculations were about 5 tons shy; we were a bit light and had to add
some water after the dive to "trim the ship". The shipyard's trim
calculations were about 70 tons heavy; we would have needed a very
large up angle and a large bell (lottsa turns per minute with the
propeller!) to maintain depth while pumping that much water out. (Of
course, that would have been a bad time to have experienced a loss of
propulsion, especially since our normal and emergency blow systems had
not yet been operationally tested.)
Just the *shipyard* drawings for a 637 class submarine filled an
incredibly large room; I've been in there! That doesn't count all the
installed equipments. And a lot of those "on the ground" documents
depend on the documents that the STS was made from. They have to be
able to tie their procedures to the equipment. That reminds me of
another sea story, but I'll spare you....
I think you know I'm fairly pro-metric and all for holding people's
feet to the fire. Can you trust me on this one when I say it's harder
than it looks?
Jim
--
James R. Frysinger University/College of Charleston
10 Captiva Row Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
Charleston, SC 29407 66 George Street
843.225.0805 Charleston, SC 29424
http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cert. Adv. Metrication Specialist 843.953.7644
