hello NASA, using the old junk box?

[Jan Panteltje]

From NY times today:

<quote>
Workers also replaced the suspect part of the chain of electronics between
controllers and the sensor, known as the point sensor box. The component,
like many parts of the shuttle, is based on 1980's technology and still
uses components like transistors soldered onto circuit boards. (Today,
semiconductor technology places millions of transistors within a single
chip.)

Some of the transistors, which are made by Fairchild Semiconductor, came
from a lot that was suspected of having manufacturing problems, said Steve
Poulos, the manager of NASA's vehicle engineering office.
</quote>

Really, man with a budget like that you'd expect them to have somebody
redesign those units.
That would only cost a couple of thousand, and less then the travel expenses
of all the people involved discussing it.

I am not sure I take NASA seriously anymore.
You must be REALLY of your rocker to use 'reject' parts after all that happened
and with that much money available.
Where did the money REALLY go!

THIS requires an investigation!

 

[[email protected]]

Not really. You forgot the organization. This is
not a backyard-bang-together, or is it ?
A redesign of a controller board controlling
whatever (say 3 transistors for a gaz valve) costs :

-some hours to justify replacement, some calculations : 2k$
-some meetings to propagate the projects up the ladder : 1k$
-a new board, with parts : 2k$
-a new test procedure, including meetings : 10k$
-a new test setup, with calibrations : 50k$
-setup production to have a few on stock : 10k$
-documentation for the various levels of insight : 10k$

Even with arbitrary numbers, 100k$ are quickly reached
in a sufficiently big organization.

Wow! Even in the old days, our meetings cost more that .
Most of our managers were engineers and didn't have to be
retaught the basics of AC/DC at each setting.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

 

[Ken Taylor]

From NY times today:

<quote>
Workers also replaced the suspect part of the chain of electronics between
controllers and the sensor, known as the point sensor box. The component,
like many parts of the shuttle, is based on 1980's technology and still
uses components like transistors soldered onto circuit boards. (Today,
semiconductor technology places millions of transistors within a single
chip.)

Some of the transistors, which are made by Fairchild Semiconductor, came
from a lot that was suspected of having manufacturing problems, said Steve
Poulos, the manager of NASA's vehicle engineering office.
</quote>

Really, man with a budget like that you'd expect them to have somebody
redesign those units.
That would only cost a couple of thousand, and less then the travel expenses
of all the people involved discussing it.

I am not sure I take NASA seriously anymore.
You must be REALLY of your rocker to use 'reject' parts after all that happened
and with that much money available.
Where did the money REALLY go!

THIS requires an investigation!

"A couple of thousand......." Um, yeah. Like you have a clue about it.

Ken

 

[Jan Panteltje]

"A couple of thousand......." Um, yeah. Like you have a clue about it.

Yep I do, I am electronic designer.
And that is kids stuff.
But maybe NASA fired all E designers long ago, and replaced with 'managers' or
idiots like you?
Complete morons to save on a 12 cent part.
From a billion $$ project.
Same guys who spend 51 billion on an aniti missile system that does not work?
**** off.

 

[[email protected]]

Yep I do, I am electronic designer.

Obviously not a professional one. Or maybe you just work out of the
side of a van selling breadboarded products.

Redesigning any of the consumer products I work with to, say, change
one transistor type, is a minimum cost of six to nine months and
$100,000 of direct costs in engineering, QA testing, FCC
recertification, perhaps also UL relisting (that is an instant ~$35,000
cost for our type of product), and more.

That's merely to meet ISO900x, FCC and AHJ requirements. NASA's
application also has to meet aviation safety standards. Even if the
change is as trivial as just switching to a different transistor
vendor, I'd be willing to bet the costs START at $250,000 and a year's
engineering and qual time - and that's probably a conservative
estimate.

 

[Pooh Bear]

Obviously not a professional one. Or maybe you just work out of the
side of a van selling breadboarded products.

Redesigning any of the consumer products I work with to, say, change
one transistor type, is a minimum cost of six to nine months and
$100,000 of direct costs in engineering, QA testing, FCC
recertification, perhaps also UL relisting (that is an instant ~$35,000
cost for our type of product), and more.

That's merely to meet ISO900x, FCC and AHJ requirements. NASA's
application also has to meet aviation safety standards. Even if the
change is as trivial as just switching to a different transistor
vendor, I'd be willing to bet the costs START at $250,000 and a year's
engineering and qual time - and that's probably a conservative
estimate.

Which is why they continue to use junk parts. Too expensive to replace with
something that works reliably on account of the paperwork.

That's why light aviation aircraft still use carburettors with their
attendant intake icing and falling out of the sky problems when a simple
replacement with fuel injection would fix the problem. It's too expensive to
certify the safer solution often.

Graahm

 

[Rene Tschaggelar]

From NY times today:

<quote>
Workers also replaced the suspect part of the chain of electronics between
controllers and the sensor, known as the point sensor box. The component,
like many parts of the shuttle, is based on 1980's technology and still
uses components like transistors soldered onto circuit boards. (Today,
semiconductor technology places millions of transistors within a single
chip.)

Some of the transistors, which are made by Fairchild Semiconductor, came
from a lot that was suspected of having manufacturing problems, said Steve
Poulos, the manager of NASA's vehicle engineering office.
</quote>

Really, man with a budget like that you'd expect them to have somebody
redesign those units.
That would only cost a couple of thousand, and less then the travel expenses
of all the people involved discussing it.

I am not sure I take NASA seriously anymore.
You must be REALLY of your rocker to use 'reject' parts after all that happened
and with that much money available.
Where did the money REALLY go!

THIS requires an investigation!

Not really. You forgot the organization. This is
not a backyard-bang-together, or is it ?
A redesign of a controller board controlling
whatever (say 3 transistors for a gaz valve) costs :

-some hours to justify replacement, some calculations : 2k$
-some meetings to propagate the projects up the ladder : 1k$
-a new board, with parts : 2k$
-a new test procedure, including meetings : 10k$
-a new test setup, with calibrations : 50k$
-setup production to have a few on stock : 10k$
-documentation for the various levels of insight : 10k$

Even with arbitrary numbers, 100k$ are quickly reached
in a sufficiently big organization.

Rene

 

[martin griffith]

On 14 Jul 2005 03:04:30 -0700, in sci.electronics.design

Obviously not a professional one. Or maybe you just work out of the
side of a van selling breadboarded products.

Redesigning any of the consumer products I work with to, say, change
one transistor type, is a minimum cost of six to nine months and
$100,000 of direct costs in engineering, QA testing, FCC
recertification, perhaps also UL relisting (that is an instant ~$35,000
cost for our type of product), and more.

That's merely to meet ISO900x, FCC and AHJ requirements. NASA's
application also has to meet aviation safety standards. Even if the
change is as trivial as just switching to a different transistor
vendor, I'd be willing to bet the costs START at $250,000 and a year's
engineering and qual time - and that's probably a conservative
estimate.

That is just so depressing


martin

 

[Graham Holloway]

[email protected] wrote:
[snipped]

That's why light aviation aircraft still use carburettors with their
attendant intake icing and falling out of the sky problems when a simple
replacement with fuel injection would fix the problem. It's too expensive to
certify the safer solution often.

Graahm

I'm not sure, but don't light aircraft engines have to run without battery
power.

Graham H

 

[Martin]

Yep I do, I am electronic designer.

Obviously not a very good one if you can come out with crap like you posted.

And that is kids stuff.
But maybe NASA fired all E designers long ago, and replaced with 'managers' or
idiots like you?
Complete morons to save on a 12 cent part.

*sigh* it's not the cost of the part. Just how many FMEACAs and
certification processes have you been through?

How expensive would it be to put an IC through a full FMEACA? It'd take
years. I use to be a design engineer working on Safety Critical System
(Level 4), it's damned expensive to just replace a part

From a billion $$ project.
Same guys who spend 51 billion on an aniti missile system that does not work?
**** off.

Says he who is talking out of his arse

 

[The Real Andy]

Which is why they continue to use junk parts. Too expensive to replace with
something that works reliably on account of the paperwork.

That's why light aviation aircraft still use carburettors with their
attendant intake icing and falling out of the sky problems when a simple
replacement with fuel injection would fix the problem. It's too expensive to
certify the safer solution often.

I am guessing a $1000 redesign will probably take 10 years and
millions of dollars to test and certify .... Well it would if you use
the software testers I used to work with....

 

[Jan Panteltje]

Obviously not a professional one. Or maybe you just work out of the
side of a van selling breadboarded products.

Redesigning any of the consumer products I work with

------------------------^^^^^^^
Not only is that bull, NASA space shuttle and related stuff is no consumer
project.
For example (consumer) changing a transistor type will likely need no
re-certification.
In INDUSTRIAL design it will not even need a discussion on a lever higher
then the local technician (looking it up in a equivalent list).
In an organization that only builds specific EXPERIMENTAL stuff it could
be considered part of the design improvements, as as such come under different
rules.
And as AERONAUTICS replacing a transistors with parts from a unit that
is known to be defective is a crime.

That's merely to meet ISO900x, FCC and AHJ requirements. NASA's
application also has to meet aviation safety standards. Even if the
change is as trivial as just switching to a different transistor
vendor, I'd be willing to bet the costs START at $250,000 and a year's
engineering and qual time - and that's probably a conservative
estimate.

Yea, the world has come to an end, for the US and NASA at least.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

Not really. You forgot the organization. This is
not a backyard-bang-together, or is it ?
A redesign of a controller board controlling
whatever (say 3 transistors for a gaz valve) costs :

-some hours to justify replacement, some calculations : 2k$
-some meetings to propagate the projects up the ladder : 1k$
-a new board, with parts : 2k$
-a new test procedure, including meetings : 10k$
-a new test setup, with calibrations : 50k$
-setup production to have a few on stock : 10k$
-documentation for the various levels of insight : 10k$

Even with arbitrary numbers, 100k$ are quickly reached
in a sufficiently big organization.

LOL, so we should reduce size and communication lines a bit...
MNASA (Micro NASA)?

Look at a company like scale composites.
Look at their budget.
If indeed (as others suggested here) the paperwork (cost)
PREVENTS improvements (to safety for example), then for sure we
can prove in front of congress that paperwork needs to go?
No, bad idea, won't work.
Then the US has come to an end... But we already knew that.
The Chinese will be first with a manned mars mission ;-)

RIP (UP) NASA

 

[Peter Webb]

Obviously not a professional one. Or maybe you just work out of the
side of a van selling breadboarded products.

Redesigning any of the consumer products I work with to, say, change
one transistor type, is a minimum cost of six to nine months and
$100,000 of direct costs in engineering, QA testing, FCC
recertification, perhaps also UL relisting (that is an instant ~$35,000
cost for our type of product), and more.

That's merely to meet ISO900x, FCC and AHJ requirements. NASA's
application also has to meet aviation safety standards. Even if the
change is as trivial as just switching to a different transistor
vendor, I'd be willing to bet the costs START at $250,000 and a year's
engineering and qual time - and that's probably a conservative
estimate.

Wouldn't it also have to be specifically space certified, and hence tested
against long term radiation exposure? Also, I would have thought that the
repeated acceleration (G force) testing of a space certified part would be
have to be far more extensive. $250k as a conservative starting point looks
about right.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

*sigh* it's not the cost of the part. Just how many FMEACAs and
certification processes have you been through?

How expensive would it be to put an IC through a full FMEACA? It'd take
years. I use to be a design engineer working on Safety Critical System
(Level 4), it's damned expensive to just replace a part

So they fired you, OK, too expensive ;-)

 

[[email protected]]

Obviously not a professional one. Or maybe you just work out of the

------------------------^^^^^^^
Not only is that bull, NASA space shuttle and related stuff is no consumer
project.
For example (consumer) changing a transistor type will likely need no
re-certification.

Bullshit. Change of frequency-determining component, requires FCC
recert and attendant lab testing time. Depending on application it may
also require UL recert. The products we make typically cost $35K for UL
cert.

Then we have internal QA time to verify the device still performs
nominally over V and T range, ESD immunity tests, EMI immunity tests,
shipping and storage (vibration, T shock) tests, etc.

I guess you work in an industry where reliability isn't an issue and
there are no consequences if your product fails. That's nice but you
need to lose this illusion that your quality "standards" have any
relationship to real engineering work.

And you're also trying to tell me that avionics is less tightly
regulated than the industry I work in, which is unmitigated balls,
bullshit and poppycock.

If you don't want to look like the fool you are, then keep your mouth
shut.

 

[[email protected]]

Redesigning any of the consumer products I work with to, say, change

Wouldn't it also have to be specifically space certified, and hence tested

I'm sure NASA's stuff has to be - I don't work in aerospace, though.
Our shipping and storage tests don't involve twenty Gs of acceleration


I was merely pointing out that the OP was spouting utter bullshit.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

You did not happen to design the one with one transistor
in my old Nissan?
It fell apart in 2 pieces, likely because of vibraton,
as the pieces were 2 PC boards at 90 degrees held
together by solder...
That broke the circuit, so the gaz was cut.....
I am talking about LPG (liquid natural gas).
If it had stayed open, and the car was parked in a parking
lot under a big gov building, it would have been terrosism.
I did not see anything in the circuit as a second safety
against for example a shorted transistor (driving the relay).
So.....
Normally it is supposed to open the valve ONLY when pulses from
the ignition are available (motor turning).
Oh well.... It was certified I am sure ;-)

 

[Keith Williams]

Wow! Even in the old days, our meetings cost more that .

Figure $100/hr/person as a starting point. "Some meetings" get to be
quite short ones if only $1K is budgeted. ;-)

Most of our managers were engineers and didn't have to be
retaught the basics of AC/DC at each setting.

Managers? AC/DC? Well, I suppose...

 

[Frithiof Andreas Jensen]

That would only cost a couple of thousand, and less then the travel
expenses
of all the people involved discussing it.

Go ahead then, build a couple - although I would wager that getting the
qualified parts *samples* for QA would be "a couple of thousands" and that
is before you even started on the real units.

I am not sure I take NASA seriously anymore.

I am sure that NASA does not worry about that!