Computer failure scrubs X-38 Space Station Return Vehicle test, and a comparison of the very different CNN and Aviation Now reports on the same storygreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Compare the two stories below.
The First is from Aviation Now. It clearly states that there was a problem with the computers on the X-38 that caused.
CNN, on the other hand, reports the event as an electrical problem. There is not a single mention of the word, computers in the CNN report. This is either extremely sloppy reporting or yet another clear example of how the mainstream media distorts and/or overtly lies about events, especially those that may be related to y2k failures.
Space Station Return Vehicle Test Postponed To March 29
NASAs X-38 Crew Return Vehicle test was called off on Feb. 26 when a problem with the vehicles computers arose. Chris Nagy, chief engineer for the X-38 program at NASAs Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards AFB, Calif., said the test has been rescheduled for March 29.
The problem centered on the X-38s two Input/Output (I/O) computers, which showed abnormal readings during the initial phases of the test, Nagy said. When the vehicle was examined, the glitch was traced to the I/O computers, which either went down simultaneously or in rapid succession for unknown reasons, he said.
The same computers also relay commands controlling the X-38s aerosurfaces during flight. Failure of the computers to properly send the commands could cause loss of control and conceivably loss of the prototype; therefore, the launch was postponed to determine what happened. Scheduling issues forced the lengthy delay.
The X-38 program is focused on developing a crew rescue vehicle for use on the International Space Station. In this test, the prototype vehicle is to be dropped from under the wing of a B-52 at an altitude of 39,000 ft. It will do several maneuvers during 11 seconds of free flight before deploying a parafoil and landing.
Electrical trouble scrubs X-38 test flight
February 28, 2000 Web posted at: 3:15 p.m. EST (2015 GMT)
EDWARDS, California (CNN) -- A prototype spacecraft designed to serve as a "lifeboat" for the International Space Station developed an unexpected electrical problem on Saturday, forcing NASA to scrub a test flight.
Known as the X-38, the low-cost vehicle is expected to become the first new U.S. manned spacecraft to fly to and from space in more than 20 years.
High winds on Friday pushed the test back a day. And on Saturday a B-52 took off carrying the X-38. The prototype was supposed to be released from 35,000 feet and land at the Dryden Flight Research Center.
But within minutes the X-38 experienced a electrical short, possibly in its flight control system, said Dryden spokesman Alan Brown. The B-52 returned to Dryden without releasing the X-38.
The problem was "totally unexpected and relatively minor," Brown said.
But since project managers "didn't understand what caused it, they were worried it might happen again" and decided not to complete the test, Brown said. The flight will most likely be rescheduled for the end of March.
One reason the flight test in California will be delayed at least several weeks is that some of the mission personnel will participate in a test of the X-38's parafoil in Yuma, Arizona, later this week, Brown said.
Last month, the X-38 team successfully flew the largest parafoil parachute ever at the U.S. Army's Yuma Proving Ground. Mission engineers released a parachute with an area almost one and half times as big as the wings of a Boeing 747 jumbo jet.
Early proposals to develop and build a crew return vehicle exceeded $2 billion. NASA estimates it can produce the X-38 prototype at one-tenth the cost, in large part by using many existing technologies and over-the-counter parts to construct the vehicle.
NASA and the European Space Agency are developing the X-38 primarily as an emergency rescue vehicle for the ISS. But space officials hope to apply the design to other purposes, such as a manned spacecraft that could be launched on the French Ariane 5 booster.
-- Carl Jenkins (Somewherepress@aol.com), February 29, 2000
Carl, good catch. Thank you for all the time spent, providing us with all the articles.
-- Maggie (song email@example.com), February 29, 2000.
"smoke in the cockpit,"
'is' also used to describe
"electrical problems." ;-)
-- Tom McDowell (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 29, 2000.
This is just typical of our controlled media. Thx Carl for the info. It's a don't tell the sheeple the truth thing.
-- (email@example.com), February 29, 2000.
Thanks, Carl. Minimizing, obfuscating, and distorting the truth is the name of the game.
-- Lurkess (Lurkess@Lurking.XNet), February 29, 2000.
Could be that the computers went down because of the electrical short?
-- Postman (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 29, 2000.
Thanks, Carl. I do see a lot of sloppiness in the press. Stories I would work on for trade press and then see--weeks to months later--in the mainstream press were most often mis-reported. I got so angry once at a CBS docotr/reporter for telling women to take hormone replacement when a story had just come out of the medical press reporting on added heart attacks for some patients. Moreover, I had interviewed the top scientists at the NIH in that regard and they had said they were waiting for the results of a large population study to give any recommendations regarding the benefits of hormone replacement. Now, here's this horrid woman doctor on CBS saying to go to it--as if there was no controversy! GMAB. I wrote them some protests, but, guess what--never heard.
-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), February 29, 2000.
Yes, the short can cause the computers to go down. But the answer does not compute.
My previous as a radar technician on fighter aircraft tells me that it was probably the computers (software) at fault...  It does not take a crew a month to find a wiring short.  Due to the quality of the wiring, harnesses, and connectors, the possibility of a "short" is VERY slim. Shorts (or opens) occur after many hours of airframe vibration.  Finding a program "glitch" and testing the patched code could easily take a month or more.
As to two versions of the same story, maybe they quoted two different spokespersons?
-- Mike (Mike@tampabay.com), March 24, 2000.