Difference between revisions of "Talk:EECOM (procedures)"
From OCE Space Simulation
m |
m (Talk:EECOM Procedures moved to Talk:EECOM (procedures)) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
==Electrical== | ==Electrical== | ||
All Electrical systems are in the Engineering software and not EECOM. Should EECOM also monitor Engineering, or should we give that to INCO as I have suggested on the [[Talk:INCO Procedures]]? [[User:Stefanido|Stefanido]] 12:49, 3 March 2010 (EST) | All Electrical systems are in the Engineering software and not EECOM. Should EECOM also monitor Engineering, or should we give that to INCO as I have suggested on the [[Talk:INCO Procedures]]? [[User:Stefanido|Stefanido]] 12:49, 3 March 2010 (EST) | ||
| + | :EECOM as one station, Engineering as one station. INCO as it is currently described is defunct---[[user:Q-Cumber|<font color="green">Q-Cumber</font>]] 15:53, 3 March 2010 (EST) | ||
Latest revision as of 11:32, 20 April 2010
LOX and LN2
We don't model LOX nor LN2. Should we? Stefanido 03:45, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
Limited supply?
Currently we have an unlimited supply of Oxygen, Nitrogen, Argon, etc... Should we institute limits in the software? (I vote yes.) If we do, then EECOM's procedures should change to allow them to give recommendations to Flight regarding aborts if supply of atmospherics so warrant. Stefanido 03:45, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
Electrical
All Electrical systems are in the Engineering software and not EECOM. Should EECOM also monitor Engineering, or should we give that to INCO as I have suggested on the Talk:INCO Procedures? Stefanido 12:49, 3 March 2010 (EST)
- EECOM as one station, Engineering as one station. INCO as it is currently described is defunct---Q-Cumber 15:53, 3 March 2010 (EST)
