At 09:55 AM 2/1/2003 -0800, you wrote:

>Well, consider that the shuttles were designed in the 70's
>and NASA has to scrounge/scavenge 8086 286 and 386
>CPU's to keep the shuttles systems going.
>
>The shuttles were high tech 15 years ago. Now they mostly
>consist of junk that most people wouldn't think twice about
>throwing away.

JUNK? Are 8-bit PICs used in high tech applications junk because they don't
come close performance wise to the latest Intel or Motorola processors? Are
they junk in the applications designed to use them because there are newer
processors out there? Systems and subsystems are designed and engineered
based around the capabilities of the individual components. These
components have been evaluated as suitable for the given application. The
fact these components may not be the current state of the art does reduce
their effectiveness in their role. Nor can one conclude that simply
replacing that component with something newer would necessarily improve or
enhance the capabilities of the system it was a part of. The "Junk" you
refer to has performed flawlessly as a system since the first shuttle
flight in 1981. The shuttles have been flying since the early 80s. They are
not new vehicles. They are however, still the most sophisticated vehicle
ever produced by humans, and continues to be the world's one and only
reusable launch vehicle. Most certainly "high tech" in the extreme... 15
years ago.. and 15 minutes ago.

Time will tell what the cause of today's tragedy was, but the STS remains a
time tested and proven system with an amazing safety and performance record
considering the number of flights, and the incredibly hostile environment
it must endure during on each and every mission. It seems particularly
inappropriate to refer to any component used to accomplish such a feat as
"junk".

- Mike

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads