"Charles Angelich" wrote to "Mike Ross" (12 Feb 03  01:47:00)
 --- on the topic of "Columbia's 'computers'"

 CA> Yes I do but is self-interest reason enough to allow people to
 CA> die?

An engineer or technician will not intentionally set out to do shoddy
work. It's when management saunters in with the big picture, deadlines,
and politics that elements might be overlooked. You're simply neglecting
what amount of pressure a 200 billion dollar budget places on them and
how they will rationalize their decisions accordingly.


 CA> I have also worked for the government seen first hand what goes
 CA> on and have absolutely _no_ appreciation for the "intricacies
 CA> of department politics". That's why I'm not there anymore. In
 CA> my universe we call the people you describe lying arrogant
 CA> incompetent wastes of space.

Realize you've just described a politician to a "T".


 MR> I dispute your contention that because
 MR> the shuttle is old makes it unsafe.

 CA> Stresses on the airframe cause micro-fine cracks that spread.
 CA> Especially when super-heated and super-cooled.

Nah, they use xray and ultrasound technology to check for that these
days. The shuttles are routinely overhauled and airframes checked.
The shuttles are kept in an as new condition at all times.


 CA> One airliner was
 CA> found to have broken in half because of square passenger
 CA> windows introducing cracks that eventually weakened the
 CA> airframe in the middle of the plane.

The shuttle has square windows... so you think that's what did it in?


 CA> The 'real' recent problem is that when NASA's QC people warned
 CA> them that there were serious problems with their QC they fired
 CA> five of them to shut the rest up and hired 'younger' persons
 CA> with a 'fresh outlook'. Fresh outlook meaning no experience. ;-)

I can see how this might be but don't forget too that the work tends
to go through a bidding process and usually awarded to the lowest bid.


 CA>  you're saying it was too old but
 CA> from a different direction. You don't see that part of your
 CA> 'argument' do you?

Hey, bug off! You're trying to undermine my argument out of spite. 


 CA> The space shuttle is too big. We hardly use it's capacity
 CA> _ever_. Many of the so-called projects could be automated and
 CA> sent up for less money on an unmanned orbiter. [. . .]

 CA> There have been alternate designs for manned vehicles that are
 CA> newer designs, lighter, and could be used when human passengers
 CA> are required. This has been a cash-cow and not a scientific
 CA> endeavor for many many years.

Each shuttle launch costs about 1 billion dollars. Certainly a lot more
science could have been had for the same money. So I agree it's a white
elephant to a point but it's needed for a lot of reasons least of
which are the spinoffs. Realize that 1 billion dollars doesn't just go
up in smoke, it paid people's jobs, but much more importantly kept an
infrastructure capability alive.

 Mike
 ****

... Beware of programmers carrying screwdrivers!
--- Blue Wave/DOS v2.30