Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

ECO sensor

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Jim Kingdon

unread,
Nov 30, 2006, 1:00:34 AM11/30/06
to
So over the last year or two there have been a lot of dicsussion of
ECO (engine cutoff) sensors, which figure out whether the shuttle's
external tank has run dry.

The shuttle was originally designed so it could launch with 3 good
sensors (out of 4). This was upgraded to 4 of 4 due to issues with
the electronics upstream from the sensors. Then the electronics were
redesigned to solve said issues. But the flight rule remained at 4 of
4, but with a certain amount of waffling about waivers and such. I've
often wondered why they didn't just go back to the original 3 of 4
flight rule. Apparently they now have:

Shuttle Program Manager Wayne Hale said senior managers today agreed
to press ahead with a launch attempt even if one of four engine cutoff
- ECO - sensors in the ship's external fuel tank fails during the
final hours of the countdown.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts116/061129frr/

Rand Simberg

unread,
Nov 30, 2006, 7:23:07 AM11/30/06
to
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 01:00:34 -0500, in a place far, far away, Jim
Kingdon <kin...@panix.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

>So over the last year or two there have been a lot of dicsussion of
>ECO (engine cutoff) sensors, which figure out whether the shuttle's
>external tank has run dry.
>
>The shuttle was originally designed so it could launch with 3 good
>sensors (out of 4). This was upgraded to 4 of 4 due to issues with
>the electronics upstream from the sensors.

That may have been the excuse, but the real reason was that they just
went through and (over)tightened all the ground rules after Columbia,
to demonstrate how "serious" they were about flight safety.

>Then the electronics were
>redesigned to solve said issues. But the flight rule remained at 4 of
>4, but with a certain amount of waffling about waivers and such. I've
>often wondered why they didn't just go back to the original 3 of 4
>flight rule. Apparently they now have:
>
> Shuttle Program Manager Wayne Hale said senior managers today agreed
> to press ahead with a launch attempt even if one of four engine cutoff
> - ECO - sensors in the ship's external fuel tank fails during the
> final hours of the countdown.
> http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts116/061129frr/

Yes, they were saying after the last flight that they were finally
going to change that dumb rule. There was no reason they couldn't
have launched on the Friday before.

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

unread,
Dec 2, 2006, 12:44:48 PM12/2/06
to

Rand, do you benefit or profit from making nasa look bad?

Rand Simberg

unread,
Dec 2, 2006, 1:26:06 PM12/2/06
to
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 12:44:48 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
<columbiaaccide...@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my

monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

>> > Shuttle Program Manager Wayne Hale said senior managers today agreed


>> > to press ahead with a launch attempt even if one of four engine cutoff
>> > - ECO - sensors in the ship's external fuel tank fails during the
>> > final hours of the countdown.
>> > http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts116/061129frr/
>>
>> Yes, they were saying after the last flight that they were finally
>> going to change that dumb rule. There was no reason they couldn't
>> have launched on the Friday before.
>
>Rand, do you benefit or profit from making nasa look bad?

Not that I'm aware of. But I don't make NASA look bad. It's moronic
NASA defenders like you (who can't even spell its name properly) and
NASA's own actions that make it look bad. I simply point them out.
Certainly, if I were compensated for NASA looking bad, I'd be a very
wealthy man.

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

unread,
Dec 6, 2006, 2:21:33 PM12/6/06
to

Wrong rand, your responsibility as an author is to answer a logical
request from a reader, as burden of proof is upon you the author to
clarify intentions and statements that can be misleading or
manipulative, ie marketing, (ie boasting if one product or service
isn't good enough, try another). Insulting the reader just
demonstrates you the authors' lack of writing skills to clarify a
readers request, and you the authors inability to manage a logical
valid question, and not a reflection of the reader.

So once again rand do you professionally benefit or profit from making
nasa look bad, because if you are in the private industry or consult in
the private industry then you do benefit from making nasa look bad.

0 new messages