[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: AO-40 launched with "known problems" ??

>   "We experienced a similar problem during the test phase of
>    P3D, and one of the helium valves was repaired as a
>    consequence."
>In case it isn't clear to you why this caught my eye, let me repeat
>a part of that quote with a little emphasis:
>    "...and one of the helium valves WAS REPAIRED"
>The bird was tested.  A part failed.  It was repaired.  And you
>consider that "...sending it up with a known problem..." ??????
>A lot of parts failed during testing.  AFIK, all the known problems
>were fixed before launch.  What evidence do you have that the bird
>was launched with any "known problems"?
>Or are you taking the position that because a part failed, such a part
>must never be used again, or that the flight should never occur?
>That's kind of like saying that rubber automobile tires are known to
>occasionally fail, and failure sometimes leads to serious injury or
>death of the driver or passengers.  Therefore all automobile
>manufacturers must immediately stop building cars that depend on the
>defective technology of pneumatic rubber tires.   Seeeshh!!!!!!

well on the tire thing ... if the tire that failed was a Firestorm and it 
was replaced with another Firestorm tire that would not be good. But if the 
defective tire was replaced with a Goodyear or some other quality brand 
that would be ok.

Did the defective valve get replaced with an identical one from the same 
manufacturer or with another brand? In the computer field some brands are 
known for having problems [I won't say which ones here because I don't want 
to get sued]. Whereas some brands are known to be high quality items. Where 
does the valve in question fall in that light?


Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org