Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: gratuitous anthrophobia (was Re: Shuttle computer reprogramming)
Message-ID: <1988Oct24.212206.20706@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <6689@nsc.nsc.com> <6980@ihlpl.ATT.COM> <1938@kalliope.rice.edu> <1988Oct20.175844.24740@utzoo.uucp> <1356@thumper.bellcore.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 88 21:22:06 GMT

In article <1356@thumper.bellcore.com> karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes:
>Given up on what approach?

DRAMs in space.

>We replaced the DRAMS with radiation-hardened
>SRAMS in Oscar 13. We do not expect radiation damage to be the limiting
>factor in this spacecraft's lifetime. As for Oscar-10 -- I and others
>who researched the subject *did* expect memory problems. The decision to
>fly them was made only when there appeared to be no alternative to get
>the spacecraft to the launch pad in time.

The impression I got was that at least some of the people involved felt
that this was not merely an emergency expedient, but also an experiment
to find out whether the technology would work well enough to be used for
other things.  It didn't.

Understand, I'm not saying that this is a bad thing.  Flying something
to find out if it works is a whole lot better than having to prove it
will work before you're allowed to fly it.  My point was just that some
of the Oscars have had failures; not all of the neat ideas have worked.
-- 
The dream *IS* alive...         |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but not at NASA.                |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu