Tillbaka till svenska Fidonet
English   Information   Debug  
STATS_OLD1   0/2539.065
STATS_OLD2   0/2530
STATS_OLD3   0/2395.095
STATS_OLD4   0/1692.25
SURVIVOR   0/495
SYSOPS_CORNER   0/3
SYSOP   0/84
TAGLINES   0/112
TEAMOS2   0/4530
TECH   0/2617
TEST.444   0/105
TRAPDOOR   0/19
TREK   0/755
TUB   0/290
UFO   0/40
UNIX   0/1316
USA_EURLINK   0/102
USR_MODEMS   0/1
VATICAN   0/2740
VIETNAM_VETS   0/14
VIRUS   0/378
VIRUS_INFO   0/201
VISUAL_BASIC   0/473
WHITEHOUSE   0/5187
WIN2000   0/101
WIN32   0/30
WIN95   0/4275
WIN95_OLD1   0/70272
WINDOWS   0/1517
WWB_SYSOP   0/419
WWB_TECH   0/810
ZCC-PUBLIC   0/1
ZEC   4

 
4DOS   0/134
ABORTION   0/7
ALASKA_CHAT   0/506
ALLFIX_FILE   0/1313
ALLFIX_FILE_OLD1   0/7997
ALT_DOS   0/152
AMATEUR_RADIO   0/1039
AMIGASALE   0/14
AMIGA   0/331
AMIGA_INT   0/1
AMIGA_PROG   0/20
AMIGA_SYSOP   0/26
ANIME   0/15
ARGUS   0/924
ASCII_ART   0/340
ASIAN_LINK   0/651
ASTRONOMY   0/417
AUDIO   0/92
AUTOMOBILE_RACING   0/105
BABYLON5   0/17862
BAG   135
BATPOWER   0/361
BBBS.ENGLISH   0/382
BBSLAW   0/109
BBS_ADS   0/5290
BBS_INTERNET   0/507
BIBLE   0/3563
BINKD   0/1119
BINKLEY   0/215
BLUEWAVE   0/2173
CABLE_MODEMS   0/25
CBM   0/46
CDRECORD   0/66
CDROM   0/20
CLASSIC_COMPUTER   0/378
COMICS   0/15
CONSPRCY   0/899
COOKING   27601
COOKING_OLD1   0/24719
COOKING_OLD2   0/40862
COOKING_OLD3   0/37489
COOKING_OLD4   0/35496
COOKING_OLD5   9370
C_ECHO   0/189
C_PLUSPLUS   0/31
DIRTY_DOZEN   0/201
DOORGAMES   0/1974
DOS_INTERNET   0/196
duplikat   5999
ECHOLIST   0/18295
EC_SUPPORT   0/318
ELECTRONICS   0/359
ELEKTRONIK.GER   1534
ENET.LINGUISTIC   0/13
ENET.POLITICS   0/4
ENET.SOFT   0/11701
ENET.SYSOP   33771
ENET.TALKS   0/32
ENGLISH_TUTOR   0/2000
EVOLUTION   0/1335
FDECHO   0/217
FDN_ANNOUNCE   0/7068
FIDONEWS   23435
FIDONEWS_OLD1   0/49742
FIDONEWS_OLD2   0/35949
FIDONEWS_OLD3   0/30874
FIDONEWS_OLD4   0/37224
FIDO_SYSOP   12841
FIDO_UTIL   0/180
FILEFIND   0/209
FILEGATE   0/212
FILM   0/18
FNEWS_PUBLISH   4155
FN_SYSOP   41520
FN_SYSOP_OLD1   71952
FTP_FIDO   0/2
FTSC_PUBLIC   0/13555
FUNNY   0/4886
GENEALOGY.EUR   0/71
GET_INFO   105
GOLDED   0/408
HAM   0/16041
HOLYSMOKE   0/6791
HOT_SITES   0/1
HTMLEDIT   0/71
HUB203   466
HUB_100   264
HUB_400   39
HUMOR   0/29
IC   0/2851
INTERNET   0/424
INTERUSER   0/3
IP_CONNECT   719
JAMNNTPD   0/233
JAMTLAND   0/47
KATTY_KORNER   0/41
LAN   0/16
LINUX-USER   0/19
LINUXHELP   0/1155
LINUX   0/22002
LINUX_BBS   0/957
mail   18.68
mail_fore_ok   249
MENSA   0/341
MODERATOR   0/102
MONTE   0/992
MOSCOW_OKLAHOMA   0/1245
MUFFIN   0/783
MUSIC   0/321
N203_STAT   894
N203_SYSCHAT   313
NET203   321
NET204   69
NET_DEV   0/10
NORD.ADMIN   0/101
NORD.CHAT   0/2572
NORD.FIDONET   189
NORD.HARDWARE   0/28
NORD.KULTUR   0/114
NORD.PROG   0/32
NORD.SOFTWARE   0/88
NORD.TEKNIK   0/58
NORD   0/453
OCCULT_CHAT   0/93
OS2BBS   0/787
OS2DOSBBS   0/580
OS2HW   0/42
OS2INET   0/37
OS2LAN   0/134
OS2PROG   0/36
OS2REXX   0/113
OS2USER-L   207
OS2   0/4779
OSDEBATE   0/18996
PASCAL   0/490
PERL   0/457
PHP   0/45
POINTS   0/405
POLITICS   0/29554
POL_INC   0/14731
PSION   103
R20_ADMIN   1117
R20_AMATORRADIO   0/2
R20_BEST_OF_FIDONET   13
R20_CHAT   0/893
R20_DEPP   0/3
R20_DEV   399
R20_ECHO2   1379
R20_ECHOPRES   0/35
R20_ESTAT   0/719
R20_FIDONETPROG...
...RAM.MYPOINT
  0/2
R20_FIDONETPROGRAM   0/22
R20_FIDONET   0/248
R20_FILEFIND   0/24
R20_FILEFOUND   0/22
R20_HIFI   0/3
R20_INFO2   2626
R20_INTERNET   0/12940
R20_INTRESSE   0/60
R20_INTR_KOM   0/99
R20_KANDIDAT.CHAT   42
R20_KANDIDAT   28
R20_KOM_DEV   112
R20_KONTROLL   0/13029
R20_KORSET   0/18
R20_LOKALTRAFIK   0/24
R20_MODERATOR   0/1852
R20_NC   76
R20_NET200   245
R20_NETWORK.OTH...
...ERNETS
  0/13
R20_OPERATIVSYS...
...TEM.LINUX
  0/44
R20_PROGRAMVAROR   0/1
R20_REC2NEC   534
R20_SFOSM   0/340
R20_SF   0/108
R20_SPRAK.ENGLISH   0/1
R20_SQUISH   107
R20_TEST   2
R20_WORST_OF_FIDONET   12
RAR   0/9
RA_MULTI   106
RA_UTIL   0/162
REGCON.EUR   0/2055
REGCON   0/13
SCIENCE   0/1206
SF   0/239
SHAREWARE_SUPPORT   0/5146
SHAREWRE   0/14
SIMPSONS   0/169
Möte TECH, 2617 texter
 lista första sista föregående nästa
Text 1994, 228 rader
Skriven 2005-08-16 15:39:48 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
   Kommentar till text 1991 av WAYNE CHIRNSIDE (1:123/140)
Ärende: NASA, shuttle, anyone?
==============================
-> -> not according to what i've seen... it was the backup sensor 
-> -> to the backup sensor that failed in the testing done during 
-> -> the launch countdown... they were unable to reproduce the 
-> -> failure during later testing after going into the system to 
-> -> try to track down the failure...     

->  WC> Every sensor is the backup for the other three and that's 
->  WC> a fact. 

-> oh? so which one is the primary? and where is this fact stated?

 WC> All four are the primary and three  are the backups to the one 
 WC> that may give an anomalous reading.

hahaha... somehow, that sounds quite political ;)

ok, so there was one giving an erroneous reading... the other three were giving
proper readings... so what was the problem?? why the big deal if three are
backups to one?? do you see what i mean and what i'm saying?

[trim]

-> right... however, the problem was that the sensor(s) were
-> indicating no fuel
-> when there was a full tank... so different problem, actually...

 WC> Well as thye never determined _what_ caused the sensor problem 
 WC> there's no way to predict any way a future failure might have
 WC> manifested itself.

ok, so until the problem happens again, you carry on... why worry about broken
eggs until you get some to put in the basket??

-> -> the failure was a "no fuel" indication when
-> -> the tanks had fuel... not an indication of fuel when there was none...

->  WC> Any intermittent failure is unpredictable and with a half million 
->  WC> gallons of liquid hydrogen and oxygen there's little room for
->  WC> error. 

-> with a _known_ full tank and one sensor telling them it is empty,
-> that sounds pretty predictable to me...

 WC> That a critcal compnent had failed yes.
 WC> Sometimes the sensor indicated fuel, other times not.

critical? there are four of them... you've already stated that three were
backups... seems to me that if three are giving the same reading and one isn't,
you ignore the one that isn't and carry on... that's pretty much what's been
stated, right??

[trim]

-> yes, i've extremely aware of all this (other than the engineer 
-> being fired)... i have archived recordings and texts of much of 
-> it, if not all of it... i'm very into this stuff and have a couple 
-> of satelite dishes set up where i can specifically acquire the NASA 
-> TVRO signals... the 10 foot mesh has two sets of recievers connected 
-> so that i can watch/record two channels off one bird... the other 
-> dish is a direct tv dish that i get the same as one of the channels 
-> off the 10 foot mesh... i won't even mention the "tracking" dish i 
-> have connected to a soundcard and tracking software for grabbing 
-> images and other data transmitted O:)                                

 WC> Sure seems you're into it!

i'm actually into quite a lot of things...

 WC> I've followed the space program since Atlas and Redstones
 WC> and the first Mercury capsules.

 WC> I've also looked into the Bell X-craft program that was before my
 WC> time by researching the internet.

hear that... kinda pretty much like myself...

[trim]

-> -> i'm not worried... i was saying that there does not have to be a
-> -> rollback to fix a problem... i left off the word "you" in front of 
-> -> "don't"...

->  WC> You do if you want to go inside the tank where the fuel sensors are
->  WC> and actually diagnose what's wrong with them, or so said NASA. They
->  WC> flew on a wing and a prayer instead.

-> obviously you don't because they didn't... they pulled the sensor(s) and
-> connected them to testing hardware and had at them for days... 
    
 WC> Nope, they wrang out the wires, swapped pairs and ran diagnostics.
 WC> To actually examine the fuel sensors one has to empty the tank,
 WC> clear it and enter the tank and that would have to have taken place
 WC> in the vehical assembly building.

they did empty the fuel tank(s)... they always do when they abort a launch...
the conference that i saw said that they pulled the sensor that was reading bad
and put it in test gear... it tested with no faults... they swapped it with
another sensor and got the same readings... then they went back to the ship,
installed everything with the test gear in the line and ran tests on the whole
assembly... the test gear in question was such that they could introduce faults
and vary the resistance of the lines for the various tests... everything rang
true and they had no other options other than to put everything back into
flight status and go on with the countdown and normal procedures... one of
those procedures was that same test that the sensor faulted on the first
time... it didn't fault this time and so they launched ;)

-> when they discovered nothing, they put them back in place and tested 
-> again for more days... still nothing showed up...  

 WC> They never moved them out of place, they're _inside_ the tank. They
 WC> swapped wire pairs, ran diagnostics and speculated on
 WC> what _might_ have been wrong with the bad sensor.

that is _not_ what was stated at the conference(s) that i saw... they still
don't know if there every was a "bad sensor"...

-> oh, and who said they had to roll back to get inside the tank(s)??
-> i'm sure there are accessible man hatches somewhere on the 
-> vehicle... at least if the sensors are inside the tank(s)...         

 WC> Source: NASA as reported by local NBC affiliate.

we all know how reporters get things wrong and/or slightly twisted... too many
of them are concentrating on verbiage and such... most reporters do nothing
more than piss me off trying to be wordy and such... i've had more than one
reporter (and editor, AAMOF) turn my own statements around by altering one or
two words, repeating what i've said in another order than i said it, or even
dropping key portions of what was said...

[trim]


->  WC> They said they would fly with three operating sensors in direct
->  WC> violation of safety regulations requiring all four be working. 

-> interesting... i dunno if i'll go digging about for that, though...
-> it is not that important, really... the mission flew and was highly 
-> successful... i have absolutely no problem with that at all...

 WC> The backup orbiter's fuel tank sensors had shown the same erratic
 WC> behavior previously.

i've not seen or heard anything about that...

-> ->  WC> It just happpened the sensor didn't fail during the runup to
-> ->  WC> launch, very fortuitous.

-> -> are you positive that it was a sensor failure? they aren't...

 WC> No way to be *positive* as the sensors were never examined.
 WC> I'd _guess_ a grounding problem but that's all it'd be is a guess.
 WC> If I had the go - no go responsibility I wouldn't launch on a
 WC> guess. 

and we waste millions more of an already dwindling budget that's getting cut
smaller and smaller...

 WC> In all likelyhood one more catastrophic failure kills the program.
 WC> There are 19 more needed launches to finish the international space
 WC> station and one Hubble service call and that's cuting it close. 

personally, i think they screwed the pooch by not getting on the ball with
other programs and vehicle development...

 WC> It also puts the odds based on past performance of another
 WC> catastrophic failure at near .60 certainty.
 WC> They could all go off flawlessly or we could have another shuttle
 WC> break up.

there's only been two out of how many lanuches?? yes, considering the loss of
life, that's two too many... however, the percentile is a lot lower than 60%...
60% is a major b0rkin'...

[trim]

->  WC> I finally found the ground fault, it was in the high - low beam
->  WC> selector button on the floor and a new one cured the problem.

-> glad you found that or we'd not be having this _friendly_
-> discussion today ;)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

-> -> ->  WC> Now the tank's burned up returning to Earth we'll never 
-> -> ->  WC> know why the sensor malfunctioned.

-> -> -> one suggestion was a ground problem because the problem never
-> -> -> happened after the initial discovery... could also have been a 
-> -> -> loose connection... either way, they apparently fixed it while 
-> -> -> getting to it and studying it...              

 WC> Or not, we'll never know.

and the mission was successful... the $$$ invested weren't wasted or otherwise
flushed down the crapper... that's a "GoodThing<tm>" ;)

[trim]

-> yup... i've been a ground more than i care to think about... i 
-> really hate being the ground path when discharging picture tubes... 
-> that's one bite that hurts like hell... not only is high voltage a 
-> problem, but so is high amperage... i can cause some real pain with 
-> 9 volts and a high amount of ampreage O:)
                               
 WC> Make up a discharge wand using high tension high voltage wire like
 WC> the anode wire, put a high value resister in line, have an
 WC> insulated handle and flat conducting surface to slide under the 
 WC> anode cup to discharge prior to pulling the anode lead.

BTDT, have several tee-shirts... however, i don't know that i actually use a
resistor... i don't like to have to wait for the discharge... spark that puppy
to ground and let's get on with the job O:)  anyway, each time it has happened,
there's been something that has distracted me and i'd get hit... oh well... i'm
a glutton for punishment at times O:)

 WC> Being a tad paranoid about such things I used a series high value
 WC> resistor in series with a lower value one with a neon bulb 
 WC> across the smaller resistor as a visual indication of discharge. 

do you have a schematic? sounds like something that would definitely work...
especially with an indicator that the is no more charge stored in the tube...
that's always been my biggest fear... and why i ground the tube even after
discharging it... i don't like the stuff building back up and surprising me,
either ;)

)\/(ark

 * Origin:  (1:3634/12)