Analogue devices has a warning on their website about designing COTS
components in space and aviation/critical life support systems. Somebody
might have tried to sue them........? it only appeared a month or so ago.

JJ

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Kunz" <montana@FAST.NET>
To: <PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: it look like NASA lost the columbia!


> NASA admits that it has shoppers on ebay bidding to obtain
> out-of-production components to use in the space program.
>
> Perhaps COTS should be re-evaluated.
>
> Andy
>
>
> At 02:13 PM 2/1/03 -0800, you wrote:
> >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
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
> [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
>

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