Subject:
|
Re: A question of remembrance...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 7 May 2001 18:14:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1480 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Jeremy... Clementine was a SINGLE spacecraft. No backup. Sure, there was QA
> performed on components on the ground to put only ones believed to work into
> it, but all the components worked (for that mission, which of course was to
> do mapping, not shoot things down). So I don't buy that line of reasoning.
Oops, I thought we were talking about the missile shield program, not one
portion of it succeeding with 99% already-proven technology. Clementine was
less about proving technology, and more about PR. Badly-needed PR, I might
add, for an obsolete and dying system.
> Surely you're not saying that we would put components into spacecraft that
> weren't QA'ed first??
You can't base the validity of a complex system by only looking at a single
delivery. That's like saying that the car will run reliably because the
engine makes a noise. To carry the analogy further, you *need* to prove the
chassis, you *need* to prove the axles, you *need* to prove the fuel pump, etc.
So yes. If you want to claim that the missile shield will work, then put
all essential, QA-approved components into orbit. But until all
mission-critical subsystems are properly tested, and until a significant
portion of the proposed mission parameters are exercised, then there is no
good argument to claim the system will even *function* let alone work.
Just the fact that the parts that fail their tests are not reported indicate
to me that this is on the most part an exercise in funding, giving little
importance to the reliability of an actual shield system.
> I'm going to stick to my assertion that space based has a better chance of
> working that ground based.
And I'm telling you that we're nowhere near that level of capability. And
I'm basing this on more than just reading (admittedly biased (your words))
news articles. OTOH, ground-based deterrents (I am assuming military,
diplomatic, and espionage factors) have already proven themselves in the
past, with a much better results-to-costs ratio.
Cheers,
- jsproat
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
| (...) Jeremy... Clementine was a SINGLE spacecraft. No backup. Sure, there was QA performed on components on the ground to put only ones believed to work into it, but all the components worked (for that mission, which of course was to do mapping, (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
197 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
