NASA seeks clues to onboard computer actions

Computerworld | FEBRUARY 05, 2003 | DAN VERTON

[chimera]

Not when you're going on the order of Mach 18 or so, you get plenty of control force from the control surfaces. The fact that the RCS (thrusters) kicked in is what is unusual.

Well, what I was alluding to was that the effectiveness of those controls is also dependent on air density as well as speed. When the thing is at orbital altitude we all know that thrusters are the only menas of control because of lack of atmosphere to make aerodynamic controls effective. There is a transition zone where one control system becomes more effective than the other. You seem to be saying that 207,00 feet is low enough to have effective aerodynamic control, but one of the early briefings I watched indicated that the RCS was still the primary means of attitude and alignment control at that height.

This jibes with what I remember from the old X-15 program. When that went over the hump at around 150,000 feet or so, I seem to remember the one pilot saying he had to use mainly thrusters, because the stick would essentially go dead. Once it dipped back down to 100,000 feet or so then the flight controls came back to life, at least in a useful sense. But, this is going from memory going back 40 years or so, and I may be mistaken...

[Inkie]

Yes, I guess he's one of the last stopping places for the proverbial buck.

[Willie Green]

I get to wondering how long this particular "experimental design" might have been in the offing. And also why it hadn't been killed long before now, as the total waste of taxpayer expense that (arguably) it clearly is, in fact.

Yes, that is what I meant.
There is no doubt that, sooner or later, we're going to figure out the cause of the Columbia disaster, correct the situation, and move forward with the space program in one way or another.
That's fine, that's what we should do.
But space travel will still have a fairly large amount of hazardous risk associated with it.
If resuming the space program means resuming the "piss as art" sideshow (or similar irrelevant activities) then I'd just as soon drop the entire space program. It just isn't worth asking our astronauts to take that risky venture into outer space, then degrade their endeavors with such superfluous nonsense.

[betty boop]

If resuming the space program means resuming the "piss as art" sideshow (or similar irrelevant activities) then I'd just as soon drop the entire space program. It just isn't worth asking our astronauts to take that risky venture into outer space, then degrade their endeavors with such superfluous nonsense.

Amen to that, Willie. NASA needs much bigger ideas; otherwise, what's the point? I suppose the motivation for this "experiment" was some sort of politically correct "cultural diversity" bushwah. What does this have to do with science?