On 16/11/10 15:51, RussellMc wrote:
>>>> the "hotel loads" shouldn't be able to take out the drive of the ship.
>>>>
>>>>         =20
>>> Did they?  I thought it was the other way around; they lost the main
>>> engines, and the "hotel loads" died too...
>>>
>>> It would be interesting to read an engineering-oriented post-incident
>>> report.
>>>       =20
>   =20
>> I heard the crank case on generator #5 split and caught fire, which
>> burnt the generator room.
>>     =20
>   =20
>> I presume some kind of firewall between the generators would suffice to
>> stop a reoccurrence.
>>     =20
> No. Murphy is not that easily bought :-).
> That would help reduce the probability of a similar appearing problem
> occurring again.
>   =20
reoccourance of that particular issue.
It seems like a simple enough precaution, engines blow up from time to=20
time, stopping them from taking out other engines seems like a good=20
idea. loosing steerage is in the same ballpark in a boat to in an=20
aeroplane to my mind, your still going to crash, it'll just be slower.

Single point failures are not allowed.

I'm not getting particularly nasty with anybody but engines catching=20
fire is a failure mode that should have been forseen.

Of course speculating without all the facts at hand is fairly pointless.
--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.