Maker Pro
Maker Pro

OT: What can be so problematic about fuel sensors?

J

JosephKK

ChairmanOfTheBored [email protected] posted to
sci.electronics.design:
ChairmanOfTheBored [email protected] posted to
sci.electronics.design:
On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:22:34 GMT, Jan Panteltje

Fuel sensors, and fuel sensor wires, and control boxes...
They have been having problems for many years.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts114/050716ecographic/
I just wonder what can be so difficult?

Cryogenics has its own set of anomalous behavior for electronics
immersed in extremely cold baths. Then, there's that "gas tight"
thing to keep things like explosions from being caused by such
sensors or the wires that feed and or exit them.

Maybe they should just put a big sight glass down the side of
the tank
and view it externally! :-]

Cryogenic temperatures. Think about it some more.

Two inches of glass by two inches wide by however many feet long,
expansion mounted with Conap polyurethane epoxy.

YOU think about it some more. Hell, we grow quarts now that is
very
pure. Wouldn't be that hard to grow a bar of that long enough.

Or even a large, round glass rod where the exposed line of sight
is
only about 5 degrees or so of the rod circumference, and the rest is
in
the tank. You could even grind notches in the inner side of it to
cause notable refractions between the liquid and rod as it passed
over the
notches. "Notches... we need stinking notches!" :-]

The "exposed "part would "see" very little "thermal attack" or
expansion
issues in such a case.

Thanks for enumerating _some_ of the variations on optical sword fluid
level sensors. There are more, including fiber optic bundles of
various kinds. How many more can you find? I remember a few more.
 
P

Paul Hovnanian P.E.

Jan said:
Fuel sensors, and fuel sensor wires, and control boxes...
They have been having problems for many years.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts114/050716ecographic/
I just wonder what can be so difficult?

The technology isn't a big deal. Its all the testing, certification,
paperwork, etc. that has to be done for any changes to critical systems
like this.

Obviously, there is a flaw in the sensor. If its a design flaw, someone
has to crunch the numbers to figure out whether its worth fixing or just
put up with the occasional canceled flight.
 
B

Benj

On a sunny day (Sun, 09 Dec 2007 11:32:31 -0800) it happened
<[email protected]>:
They have been having problems for many years.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts114/050716ecographic/
I just wonder what can be so difficult?
Cryogenics has its own set of anomalous behavior for electronics
immersed in extremely cold baths. Then, there's that "gas tight" thing
to keep things like explosions from being caused by such sensors or the
wires that feed and or exit them.
Maybe they should just put a big sight glass down the side of the tank
and view it externally! :-]
Actually that is a cool idea.
I was sort of looking forward to watching it launch on NASA TV, always
impressive so much power.
I was thinking myself: 'air bubbles', not electronics.
Such a glass would make a check easy.
Else a small video camera next to the sensors with a white LED ?

There ya go. Make a series of holes down the tank side, and put pen
cameras in each hole. No more internal sensors.

There is a very interesting video of the redstone rocket days (1960s)
where they were very concerned about how efficiently a tank empties while
in use. They actually had cameras mounted inside the tanks for a long
time during those years. Some of the videos are pretty cool <sic>.

Yeah, the company I worked for helped them with that. They bought a
magnetic sensor that they fiberglassed to the outside of the tank and
there were magnets on a floating lid inside the tank. Sort of sight
gauge at a distance.
 
C

ChairmanOfTheBored

Jan Panteltje [email protected] posted to
sci.electronics.design:


Way too many important decisions were made by bean counters instead of
engineers. They had to reverse some when Challenger was destroyed,
just not all of them.


Challenger was destroyed by a bad decision to launch in too cold of
weather, and the effect that temperature had on SRB mid tube seal.

The seal was the problem, and Morton-Thiokol was where the poor design
was implemented... by engineers.
 
C

ChairmanOfTheBored

ChairmanOfTheBored [email protected] posted to
sci.electronics.design:
ChairmanOfTheBored [email protected] posted to
sci.electronics.design:

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:22:34 GMT, Jan Panteltje

Fuel sensors, and fuel sensor wires, and control boxes...
They have been having problems for many years.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts114/050716ecographic/
I just wonder what can be so difficult?

Cryogenics has its own set of anomalous behavior for electronics
immersed in extremely cold baths. Then, there's that "gas tight"
thing to keep things like explosions from being caused by such
sensors or the wires that feed and or exit them.

Maybe they should just put a big sight glass down the side of
the tank
and view it externally! :-]

Cryogenic temperatures. Think about it some more.

Two inches of glass by two inches wide by however many feet long,
expansion mounted with Conap polyurethane epoxy.

YOU think about it some more. Hell, we grow quarts now that is
very
pure. Wouldn't be that hard to grow a bar of that long enough.

Or even a large, round glass rod where the exposed line of sight
is
only about 5 degrees or so of the rod circumference, and the rest is
in
the tank. You could even grind notches in the inner side of it to
cause notable refractions between the liquid and rod as it passed
over the
notches. "Notches... we need stinking notches!" :-]

The "exposed "part would "see" very little "thermal attack" or
expansion
issues in such a case.

Thanks for enumerating _some_ of the variations on optical sword fluid
level sensors. There are more, including fiber optic bundles of
various kinds. How many more can you find? I remember a few more.


Find? I didn't look for those. That was just a couple ideas off the
top of my head.
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Challenger was destroyed by a bad decision to launch in too cold of
weather, and the effect that temperature had on SRB mid tube seal.

The seal was the problem, and Morton-Thiokol was where the poor design
was implemented... by engineers.

Sure, but those engineers *warned* NASA not to launch, but the politicians or
managers needed a success right away, so they launched anyway.
 
J

Jan Panteltje

The technology isn't a big deal. Its all the testing, certification,
paperwork, etc. that has to be done for any changes to critical systems
like this.

Obviously, there is a flaw in the sensor.

Probably just air bubbles when filing the tank.
 
C

ChairmanOfTheBored

Probably just air bubbles when filing the tank.

With the viscosity of LO2 and liquid Hydrogen being near nil, I am
quite sure there is no foaming or bubbles anywhere in the tanks... ever.
 
J

Jan Panteltje

With the viscosity of LO2 and liquid Hydrogen being near nil, I am
quite sure there is no foaming or bubbles anywhere in the tanks... ever.

That is probably correct (I have very limited experience with that),
but what happens to normal air, or even some condensation on the sensors
when cooled suddenly?
 
F

Fred Bloggs

Jan said:
Sure, but those engineers *warned* NASA not to launch,...

No they didn't. There was only the *one* Morton-Thiokol engineer who was
doing materials reliability analysis of recovered seals who warned his
*low level* management that failure of reused seals was imminent. His
career was destroyed and several attempts were made on his life
subsequent to his whistle-blowing after the catastrophe.
Within NASA they dug up one old wishy-washy internal memorandumb ( news
reported it was a memorandumb and not a technical report) pertaining to
the risk associated with reusable seal reliability, nothing forceful or
definitive, which never garnered much attention. The specialized
technical material requires translation into baby-talk and a politically
oriented advocate before it goes anywhere.

but the
politicians or managers needed a success right away, so they launched
anyway.

Ohhhh...who gives a damn...
 
J

Jan Panteltje

No they didn't. There was only the *one* Morton-Thiokol engineer who was
doing materials reliability analysis of recovered seals who warned his
*low level* management that failure of reused seals was imminent. His
career was destroyed and several attempts were made on his life
subsequent to his whistle-blowing after the catastrophe.
Within NASA they dug up one old wishy-washy internal memorandumb ( news
reported it was a memorandumb and not a technical report) pertaining to
the risk associated with reusable seal reliability, nothing forceful or
definitive, which never garnered much attention. The specialized
technical material requires translation into baby-talk and a politically
oriented advocate before it goes anywhere.

I have seen a very different version in some documentary/
And the warnin gwas that those seal would not seal under a specific temperature,
nothing to do with 'used'.
The temperature was lower, and they lauched anyway.
Ohhhh...who gives a damn...

Well ask the family of those astronouts.
Also it put the project on hold for years.
 
P

Paul Hovnanian P.E.

Jan said:
That is probably correct (I have very limited experience with that),
but what happens to normal air, or even some condensation on the sensors
when cooled suddenly?

Cooled suddenly might be the problem. Thermal shock of the H2/LOX
hitting room temp. equipment might be what's doing them it.
 
C

ChairmanOfTheBored

That is probably correct (I have very limited experience with that),
but what happens to normal air, or even some condensation on the sensors
when cooled suddenly?


Trust me, there is no water born (humid) air in those tanks before
filling.
 
C

ChairmanOfTheBored

Cooled suddenly might be the problem. Thermal shock of the H2/LOX
hitting room temp. equipment might be what's doing them it.


Do you actually think that NASA doesn't 100% duplicate the environment
found inside those tanks (devoid of moisture) when they run tests on
removed gear?

Nice try.
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Trust me, there is no water born (humid) air in those tanks before
filling.

Well it is Florida, and next to a swap IIR ;-),
all air has some humidity... I mean should there not be some moisture?
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Do you actually think that NASA doesn't 100% duplicate the environment
found inside those tanks (devoid of moisture) when they run tests on
removed gear?

If it was designed by politicans, then probably no.

I did just read in the news that they will now cut the cables and ase a
reflectometer to see 'where the cable is broken'.
It is not broken.
I thing NASA employs morons.
 
F

Fred Bloggs

Jan said:
I have seen a very different version in some documentary/
And the warnin gwas that those seal would not seal under a specific temperature,
nothing to do with 'used'.
The temperature was lower, and they lauched anyway.

The problem was with re-using the seals. All of the boost phase assembly
is retrieved from the water after launch and re-used. Your documentary
and/or your understanding of its content is flawed.
 
J

Jan Panteltje

The problem was with re-using the seals. All of the boost phase assembly
is retrieved from the water after launch and re-used. Your documentary
and/or your understanding of its content is flawed.

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster
<quote>
The disaster resulted in a 32-month hiatus in the shuttle program and the
formation of the Rogers Commission, a special commission appointed by United
States President Ronald Reagan to investigate the accident. The Rogers
Commission found that NASA's organizational culture and decision-making
processes had been a key contributing factor to the accident. NASA managers
had known that contractor Morton Thiokol's design of the SRBs contained a
potentially catastrophic flaw in the O-rings since 1977, but they failed to
address it properly.
They also ignored warnings from engineers about the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
dangers of launching on such a cold day and had failed to adequately report
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
these technical concerns to their superiors. The Rogers Commission offered
NASA nine recommendations that were to be implemented before shuttle flights
resumed.
<end quote>

<quote>
Forecasts for January 28 predicted an unusually cold morning, with
temperatures close to 31 °F (?0.5 °C), the minimum temperature permitted for
launch. The low temperature had prompted concern from engineers at Morton
Thiokol, the contractor responsible for the construction and maintenance of
the shuttle's SRB. At a teleconference which took place on the evening of
January 27, Thiokol engineers and managers discussed the weather conditions
with NASA managers from Kennedy Space Center and Marshall Space Flight
Center. Several engineers?most notably Roger Boisjoly, who had voiced
similar concerns previously?expressed their concern about the effect of the
temperature on the resilience of the rubber O-rings that sealed the joints
of the SRBs. They argued that if the O-rings were colder than 53 °F
(approximately 11.7 °C), there was no guarantee the O-rings would seal
properly. This was an important consideration, since the O-rings had been
designated as a "Criticality 1" component?meaning their failure would
destroy Challenger and its crew. They also argued that the low overnight
temperatures would almost certainly result in SRB temperatures below their
redline of 40 °F. However, they were overruled by Morton Thiokol management,
who recommended that the launch proceed as scheduled.[4]
<end quote>
 
C

ChairmanOfTheBored

Well it is Florida, and next to a swap IIR ;-),
all air has some humidity... I mean should there not be some moisture?


They get vented, and it is not with atmospheric air. Then they get
filled.
 
J

Jan Panteltje

They get vented, and it is not with atmospheric air. Then they get
filled.

OK
That leaves air bubbles, or maybe buubles of frozen air.... ;-)
 
Top