Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Oldspace got fat and lazy (Score 2) 215

My understanding of the SpaceX engine control system is that the launch portion is completely automated; once the vehicle is ignited, the only on-ground task is the safety control officer's in the event the vehicle becomes unstable and needs to be destroyed.

This is apparent during the latest launch to the ISS: a merlin engine was lost, and the onboard launch system safed the motor and increased burn time on the remaining motors to obtain orbit. While its true that the secondary mission failed due to a small window (due to NASA/ISS safety margins), the vehicle was still able to a) make it to orbit and b) complete its primary mission with *zero* human intervention.

Comment Re:Extra safety (Score 2) 337

No, they're not. It's software's job to determine sensor inconsistencies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

The aircraft crashed following an aerodynamic stall caused by inconsistent airspeed sensor readings, the disengagement of the autopilot, and the pilot making nose-up inputs despite stall warnings, causing a fatal loss of airspeed and a sharp descent. The pilots had not received specific training in "manual airplane handling of approach to stall and stall recovery at high altitude"; this was not a standard training requirement at the time of the accident.[8][1][9]

The reason for the faulty readings is unknown, but it is assumed by the accident investigators to have been caused by the formation of ice inside the pitot tubes, depriving the airspeed sensors of forward-facing air pressure.[10][11][12] Pitot tube blockage has contributed to airliner crashes in the past – such as Northwest Airlines Flight 6231 in 1974 and Birgenair Flight 301 in 1996.[13]

Slashdot Top Deals

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford

Working...