Searching \ for '[TECH]: LHC seems like a real jerry rig device' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=lhc+seems+like+real
Search entire site for: ': LHC seems like a real jerry rig device'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[TECH]: LHC seems like a real jerry rig device'
2008\11\17@173104 by Michael Algernon

flavicon
face
www.rdmag.com/ShowPR.aspx?PUBCODE=014&ACCT=1400000100&ISSUE=0811&RELTYPE=PSC&PRODCODE=00000000&PRODLETT=BT&CommonCount=0

One bad solder joint costs $21,000,000 to repair ?

MA

 WFT Electronics
Denver, CO   720 222 1309
" dent the UNIVERSE "

All ideas, text, drawings and audio , that are originated by WFT  
Electronics ( and it's principals ),  that are included with this  
signature text are to be deemed to be released to the public domain as  
of the date of this communication .

2008\11\17@180321 by apptech

face
flavicon
face
> http://www.rdmag.com/ShowPR.aspx?PUBCODE=014&ACCT=1400000100&ISSUE=0811&RELTYPE=PSC&PRODCODE=00000000&PRODLETT=BT&CommonCount=0
>
> One bad solder joint costs $21,000,000 to repair ?

I think that that probably should be put "The cost of having to repair a
single solder joint is estimated to be $21,000,000." The actual repair
probably costs them a few hundred to a few thousand dollars dollars if done
properly. (ie cost of preparing to do it, actually doing it, inspecting it,
cross checking the work, cross cross checking the work and then documenting
it all to ISO 20,000,001 standards. Make that $10,000.

Warming up, opening up, sealing up and cooling down an LHC while everyone
else twiddles their thumbs and they pay for the power bill, rent etc
probably accounts  for the very major part of the cost. Hopefully they
didn't actually throw away the large amount of liquid Helium that needed to
be removed, or actually lose too too much of it.



  Russell


2008\11\17@184058 by Clint Sharp

picon face
In message <spam_OUT39985158-EBB2-461B-9EC7-C122C876F82FTakeThisOuTspamnope9.com>, Michael
Algernon <.....picKILLspamspam@spam@nope9.com> writes
>www.rdmag.com/ShowPR.aspx?PUBCODE=014&ACCT=1400000100&ISSUE=0811&
>RELTYPE=PSC&PRODCODE=00000000&PRODLETT=BT&CommonCount=0
>
>One bad solder joint costs $21,000,000 to repair ?
>
Bloody ROHS.
--
Clint Sharp

2008\11\17@235117 by Peter Loron

flavicon
face
On Nov 17, 2008, at 3:02 PM, apptech wrote:

{Quote hidden}

IIRC, there was quite a LHe spill when the quench happened originally.  
I would hope they have a way to capture the He from sections that they  
need to warm up, but I don't know. I doubt they have a system in place  
to recover He that escapes into the service tunnel.

Major drag that something that (seemingly) should have been caught in  
an inspection wound up costing so much money and (more importantly)  
time.

-Pete

2008\11\18@035833 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Major drag that something that (seemingly) should have been
>caught in an inspection wound up costing so much money and
>(more importantly) time.

Yep, that is why things cost so much, such a little error results in even
bigger costs if you don't.

'Tis a major reason space operations cost so much, inspect and check,
inspect and check, repeat at every stage ...

2008\11\18@103648 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
Reminds me of the early issues with the Hubble telescope.  One minor
problem in software led to grinding the mirror wrong, proper checks
were not carried out or tested the wrong things, didn't see the
problem until it was in space.  While software could help, the real
fix required some additional optics installed at the expense of a
shuttle and EVA mission.

-Adam

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Michael Algernon <picspamKILLspamnope9.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\11\18@171702 by Jonathan Hallameyer

picon face
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Clint Sharp <.....piclistKILLspamspam.....mit.edu> wrote:
> In message <EraseME39985158-EBB2-461B-9EC7-C122C876F82Fspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTnope9.com>, Michael
> Algernon <picspamspam_OUTnope9.com> writes
>>www.rdmag.com/ShowPR.aspx?PUBCODE=014&ACCT=1400000100&ISSUE=0811&
>>RELTYPE=PSC&PRODCODE=00000000&PRODLETT=BT&CommonCount=0
>>
>>One bad solder joint costs $21,000,000 to repair ?
>>
> Bloody ROHS.
> --
> Clint Sharp
> -

2008\11\18@201753 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
Actually the problem was caused by a lens in measuring instrument being
installed wrong.
It was out by 1 mm.

They checked it with 2 other instruments but they believed the "main"
one over both the others that said it was wrong.

M. Adam Davis wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>> --

2008\11\19@042516 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Actually the problem was caused by a lens in measuring instrument
>being installed wrong.
>It was out by 1 mm.

I heard there was a chip in the paint on the test support structure that
reflected light trough the lens and kept giving false errors in the lens, so
they would go and do another grind, then the next time it came back to the
test rig, it was put on rotated a little from last time, so the 'error'
showed in a different place on the lens ...

I seem to remember this from a TV program on the making of Hubble, and what
was done to repair it.

2008\11\19@084603 by Mike snyder

picon face
>
> I heard there was a chip in the paint on the test support structure that
> reflected light trough the lens and kept giving false errors in the lens, so
> they would go and do another grind, then the next time it came back to the
> test rig, it was put on rotated a little from last time, so the 'error'
> showed in a different place on the lens ...
>
> I seem to remember this from a TV program on the making of Hubble, and what
> was done to repair it.
>

Wikipedia knows

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope

"A commission headed by Lew Allen, director of the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, was established to determine how the error could have
arisen. The Allen Commission found that the main null corrector, a
device used to measure the exact shape of the mirror, had been
incorrectly assembled—one lens was wrongly spaced by 1.3 mm.[48]
During the polishing of the mirror, Perkin-Elmer had analyzed its
surface with two other null correctors, both of which (correctly)
indicated that the mirror was suffering from spherical aberration. The
company ignored these test results as it believed that the two null
correctors were less accurate than the primary device which was
reporting that the mirror was perfectly figured.[49]

The commission blamed the failings primarily on Perkin-Elmer.
Relations between NASA and the optics company had been severely
strained during the telescope construction due to frequent schedule
slippage and cost overruns. NASA found that Perkin-Elmer had not
regarded the telescope mirror as a crucial part of their business and
were also secure in the knowledge that NASA could not take its
business elsewhere once the polishing had begun. While the commission
heavily criticized Perkin-Elmer for these managerial failings, NASA
was also criticized for not picking up on the quality control
shortcomings such as relying totally on test results from a single
instrument.[50]"

2008\11\19@204711 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
Alan B. Pearce wrote:
>> Actually the problem was caused by a lens in measuring instrument
>> being installed wrong.
>> It was out by 1 mm.
>>    
>
> I heard there was a chip in the paint on the test support structure that
> reflected light trough the lens and kept giving false errors in the lens, so
> they would go and do another grind, then the next time it came back to the
> test rig, it was put on rotated a little from last time, so the 'error'
> showed in a different place on the lens ...
>
> I seem to remember this from a TV program on the making of Hubble, and what
> was done to repair it.
>
>  
I saw the same program, but I had a look and couldn't find anything to
corroborate that story.
There seems to be stuff supporting the bad lens theory.

2008\11\20@120426 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Mike snyder <KILLspammsnyder19KILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:
> The commission blamed the failings primarily on Perkin-Elmer.

And that's why you always buy parts with a "manufacturer pays for
shipping both ways on defective parts" clause.

-Adam

--
Please rate and vote for my contest entry:
mypic32.com/web/guest/profiles?profileID=50331

2008\11\20@154933 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
M. Adam Davis wrote:
>> The commission blamed the failings primarily on Perkin-Elmer.
>
> And that's why you always buy parts with a "manufacturer pays for
> shipping both ways on defective parts" clause.

That's funny. :)  I wonder what would the charge be if NASA insisted on
returning the telescope back from the orbit, for repairs.

Vitaliy

2008\11\20@171434 by Peter Loron

flavicon
face
I think the cost in real money of a shuttle mission is > $1B these  
days. And I'm not sure the Shuttle has ever landed with anything that  
heavy.

-Pete

On Nov 20, 2008, at 12:47 PM, Vitaliy wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> --

2008\11\21@055707 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face
>> I wonder what would the charge be if NASA insisted on returning the  
>> telescope back from the orbit, for repairs.

"Astronomical"; Duh!

 ;-)
BillW


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008 , 2009 only
- Today
- New search...