-
#120 by Fred Clausen on 19 Jun, 2007 03:49
-
Wow. Am I the only one who likes that golden glow? :laugh:
-
#121 by MKremer on 19 Jun, 2007 04:29
-
Quote
JimO - 18/6/2007 10:32 PM
My own (JimO's) comments:
I must confess I'm a more than a little bit dismayed by Mr. Engelauf's apparent brushing off the question of what caused the original computer problems with the assurances that since the crew has found a way to get them working again, the problems are for all intents and purposes solved (he certainly gave that impression). It seems to me that the 'new NASA safety culture' should demand that the causal chain of the computer crashes be verified and that lash-ups by the crew do in fact forestall a repetition of that causal chain -- rather than just deciding, "It seems to be working so we'll assume it's OK". Until then, the uninterrupted future good health of that hardware ought to be help in deep suspicion. But now we see the view expressed that seems awfully much like "we've found one problem and fixed it, we can conveniently assume it was the only problem" -- and a NASA official feels justified in reaching that conclusion and expressing it in public less than five years after the 'Columbia' catastrophe. Am I being over-sensitive to this tone?
That sort of 'public' attitude makes me uncomfortable, too.
Imagine you depend constantly on computers for your business, and if a diagnostic/repair person gave you a report about a total failure of your computers and the "fixes" they did:
"OK, your UPS/power conditioning failed, but we rewired to bypass them and the computers now power up and boot ok. We tested by running all your programs and they work ok, too.
We don't know the cause of the UPS failures, or if they're the primary reason for the power failures. But since the computers power up and can run all your software, it absolutely must mean your computers are *Just Fine* and there's nothing else to worry about."
That kind of "fix" and "guarantee" would give me major heebies, first because the failures and bypasses weren't anticipated and are definitely non-standard 'kludges', and second because the "fix" and assurances about the fix being a final answer (and there being no more hidden hardware failures just waiting to happen in the future because of the initial power disruptions).
So, no, you're not being too sensitive, and IMO the NASA/Russian public declarations that "everything is now Just Fine! nothing to worry all your pretty heads about!" is a bit disingenuous.
-
#122 by Joffan on 19 Jun, 2007 04:32
-
JimO, I understand your concern and I think I'd share it if they had only got the computer working again and then dusted off their hands. I think the process that has been followed is a little more reassuring than that however. Although the root cause has not been identified with certainty, a work-around has been set up and tested, which lends assurance that the station vulnerability has at least has been ameliorated. Also I feel confident (& I understand others might not feel so) that there will be further investigation which will at least be able to say how likely it is that the change in the background plasma stream might have been responsible for the change in noise level/quality, and inform changes that might reduce the risk further without incurring other (new) risks.
-
#123 by NASA_Twix_JSC on 19 Jun, 2007 04:50
-
It was a PAO event. There are few occasions where they've given the full story. It's all about soundbytes, not full technical details. I've not watched a MSB for many a mission as it's usually removed from reality when the question calls for a full and frank evaluation. Luckily most of the media there, not you Jim of course, ask dumb enough questions for them to do so. This is a Russian problem that we're all pretty sure hasn't been left as is.
There's two options, 1) Believe the everything is ok, so we'll move on, next MSB information, or 2) Work from the internal information, where you see the opposite, http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5138 There are still teams working the fault tree. It's just not certain what caused it yet.
-
#124 by Andrewwski on 19 Jun, 2007 05:22
-
I converted Chris's video file of Suni's farewell messages and the dancing controllers to WMV, which allows for the use of fast forward and such. I would have put them up at the time but my internet connection has been sporadic today. It seems better now so I'll try putting them up.
Watching/listening to Suni throughout this mission has been a lot of fun. Her friendly conversations bring a positive mood that isn't always exhibited.
-
#125 by MKremer on 19 Jun, 2007 06:10
-
Thanks for the video.
I think it's Suni's overall kind nature and enthusiasm for what she's doing, no matter the personal hardships, that make people pay attention to and like her.
-
#126 by johnhols on 19 Jun, 2007 07:57
-
Sorry if in the wrong place, but it's relevant to the current stage, can anyone point me in the direction of what they do between the time they close the hatch and finally leave. Seems to be a long time between the two events. Also details about O2 consumption/production on the ISS.
TIA -
#127 by dawei on 19 Jun, 2007 07:59
-
I believe they close the hatch before they go to sleep and undock fairly early the next morning.
-
#128 by USFJoseph on 19 Jun, 2007 11:04
-
FD12 Execute Package here