[wplug] [OT] Why /. doesn't matter -- WAS: Book published using Open Source software

[Bryan J. Smith]

On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 21:18 -0400, Tom Rhodes wrote:
> NASA engineering is pathetic,

How many complex technical products do you know are maintained for over
25 years?  Most products don't last more than 5 without significant
changes.

The STS is 100,000 parts.

>  the shuttle violates all kinds of
> rules; saftey was one of them.

"Rules"?  What "rules"?  Can you define these "rules"?

If NASA only launched the Shuttle when it was "safe" to do so, it would
_never_ fly.  I would be interested in how _you_ would propose NASA make
the Shuttle, or any space vehicle, "safe"?

Or better yet, what is your "safe" solution?  It's easy to complain.
It's far more difficult to propose an _actual_ solution.

[ This is my problem with Al Gore as well, which is sported in my sig. ]

> They only (supposedly) implemented fixes in their organization after
> Challenger in 1986.
> I mean, Challenger blew up because of an o-ring. AN O-RING!?

Did you even read my blog entry?

The STS is 100,000 parts.  NASA spent 10 years designing and developing
the system to work with all risks mitigated.

Unfortunately, _unlike_ Apollo that only flew for 5 years, the Shuttle
has flown for over 25.  After 5 years, materials _change_.

Challenger didn't blow up because of just an O-Ring in 1986.  It blew up
because the sealant around the O-Ring was changed in 1985, because the
sealant material wasn't available anymore due to EPA regulations.

The current issue with the insulation is that the tensile strength of
CFC-free replacements is not even 1/10th of that of CFC -- again, yet
another EPA regulation forced change (regulated in 1987, implemented
completely by 1997).  This stuff doesn't just affect the shuttle, it
affects _all_ launch vehicles (including our nuclear arsenal).

The EPA finally caved in and gave NASA a special exception in 2003.  But
guess what?  No one makes the stuff!

Engineers design things to mitigate risk.  Unfortunately, materials
aren't always available when they are no longer produced.  Then you have
to find an "alternative."  That's when you find out that the
"replacement" isn't always suitable.

> One drawback is that NASA is prone to prolitical influence.  :(

Oh, and politicians can implement as "safer" shuttle or spacecraft?

I also suppose you're against NASA using "nukes" too, eh?  Were you out
boycotting Galileo and Casini too?  And NASA should cave into that type
of ignorance too?

People say I "biased" because I worked out at the Cape.  I'm biased
because I'm an engineer, not because I used to work for NASA.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith         Professional, Technical Annoyance
mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org   http://thebs413.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------------
        Fission Power:  An Inconvenient Solution