NASA will help probe Toyota acceleration problem

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

By KEN THOMAS

WASHINGTON (AP) - NASA and the National Academy of Sciences are joining the government's effort to figure out what caused the sudden acceleration problems that led to Toyota's massive recalls.

NASA scientists with expertise in electronics will help the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study potential electronic ties to unintended acceleration in Toyotas. NASA's knowledge of electronics, computer hardware and software and hazard analysis will ensure a comprehensive review, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Monday.

In a separate study, the National Academy of Sciences will examine unwanted acceleration and electronic vehicle controls in cars from around the auto industry, LaHood said. The National Academy is an independent organization chartered by Congress.

The academy study, expected to take 15 months, will review acceleration problems and recommend how the government can ensure the safety of vehicle electronic control systems.


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20100330/D9EOQALO0.html

---

Toyota Motor Corp. President Akio Toyoda speaks during a meeting of the Special Committee for Global Quality at its headquarters Tuesday, March 30, 2010 in Toyota, central Japan. Toyota has held the first meeting for its special committee of global quality control experts that was set up to respond to the Japanese automaker's recall crisis. (AP Photo/Koji Sasahara)

[damyank913]

1. I knew they shoulda went with the $20,000.00 gas pedal...

So much for "value engineering". This is what happens when you give a potentially good engineering idea to bean counters for improvement.

[LiberalFighter]

2. I hope the government (NASA) bills Toyota for the cost of the investigation.

[Romulox]

5. Nope. Socializing risk is the "New Democrat" way... nt

[Wednesdays]

3. There's a car in orbit?

:shrug:

[kentauros]

7. Most people seem to have forgotten what "NASA" stands for anymore:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

They're not just about putting people and equipment in orbit, even if that's the most visible of their tasks. Take a quick look at NASA Tech Briefs for a better idea of their influence in the world :)

[Romulox]

8. It's not NASA's job to subsidize foreign corporations at the US taxpayer's expense.

Acronyms notwithstanding. :hi:

[kentauros]

10. And yet there are foreign corporations that supply and work with NASA.

Why should there be a problem with NASA reciprocating? They have a long history of working with automotive companies, in both directions. Here, look at this article: Advancing Automotive Design With Innovative Collaboration

[Romulox]

11. What foreign governments "reciprocate" by susidizing the US auto industry?

This should be good. :hi:

[kentauros]

12. I said corporations, not governments.

And last I checked, NASA isn't a government ;)

[Romulox]

14. Right. But NASA is funded by the US Taxpayer, not a private corporation.

It's not free to donate money to foreign corporations to form some sort of bizarre, one-way "circle of sharing". :hi: :eyes:

[kentauros]

16. I'm guessing you didn't read the article posted.

Although the study will cost us $3,000,000 (which is pretty damn small for a 15-month study) nowhere is it mentioned that we are either paying Toyota directly or indirectly subsidizing them, other than the need to buy vehicles for testing (as would happen with any such test.) What's actually occurring here is that the NHTSA has asked two fellow US agencies help in finding this problem in order to save the lives of those Americans that own and drive Toyota vehicles. Information will likely be shared in order to fix the problem, but no money is changing hands that I can tell.

So, where did you find the reported story that Toyota is being paid directly or even indirectly with US government money in order to fix a major engineering problem? Please link it so the rest of us can figure out where you're coming up with this information.

[Romulox]

17. It is fair to assume it is a subsidy from the US taxpayer, as that's NASA's source of funding.

"nowhere is it mentioned that we are either paying Toyota directly or indirectly subsidizing them"

Doing the QA testing is itself the subsidy to which I refer. :eyes:

Your contortions act like an admission--you can't defend this. Or you need to refresh you understanding of the concept of a "subsidy". Either way.

[kentauros]

18. Oh, I understand it just fine.

I also have absolutely no problem doing it. What I am having difficulty understanding is your problem with the American people paying out the equivalent of one cent per person over the next year and a quarter to help save the lives of those in Toyota vehicles.

[Romulox]

19. "It's just a *little* corporatism" isn't a persuasive argument.

No US taxpayer money should be used to help foreign corporations develop automobiles. None.

[kentauros]

20. Okay, now I know your point of view, and thank you.

And I still have absolutely no problem doing this as to me, it's a safety issue and that takes precedence over anything else. That's my point of view :)

[Romulox]

21. Just like NASA investigated the Ford roll overs. For safety's sake!

Er, right? :shrug:

[kentauros]

23. Did NHTSA request NASA's help in that instance?

It's not a comparable situation as that's a factor that didn't happen.

Now, I said I understand your point of view, and I stated mine. Why continue this beyond what's necessary?

[Romulox]

25. You're the one who said there is vast precedent for this. Now you're not so sure...

:shrug:

[kentauros]

27. Hardly.

I'm still quite sure about it. However, you seem to want to bring up examples that simply do not compare to this one. NASA's help was specifically requested (along with the NAS) to figure out this problem. NHTSA did not make such a request on any other issue. Your point of view seems to be that even safety isn't worth the money from us taxpayers if it means it's going to a foreign company. I say it doesn't matter if it means saving lives.

But you can't take what I've just said and use it on something that has occurred in the past, since those factors are done and over with. If you want to apply what I'm saying to this story and any others to come in the future, then you can argue with me over whether I'm sure about my point of view or not ;)

[Romulox]

34. My objection does not turn on who made what request. It turns on US taxpayer $$$ to a private corp.

"But you can't take what I've just said and use it on something that has occurred in the past, since those factors are done and over with."

First you don't know what a "subsidy" is, and now you don't know what a "precedent" is (even though you entire argument supposedly turns on it.)

What can be done with such as you? :shrug:

[kentauros]

36. As I don't know how to time-travel, I also don't know how to

make a precedent affect things that are done and over with. Unless you want to dig that legal issue up again and make such a precedent, then it's possible. But I'm guessing you aren't going to go to all that trouble, time and money over a simple argument online. I'm making it with this particular story and no other, unless another similarly comparable one comes into being in the future. Your example simply cannot be used because the factors that you are most contentious with did not exist in your example with Ford, i.e., no help from NASA or the NAS. You appear to want to continue to ignore this little fact and I will not.

As for money going to a corporation, it happens all the time. Sure, you have to start somewhere in your protest, but this is one I simply am not protesting as it has the potential to be quite useful and helpful to all of us in the short-term and long-term.

[Romulox]

37. Bizarre inanities about time travel aside, referencing a "precedent" means that you

are referring to a time in the past when a particular set of facts obtained, and then arguing that the rule applied to that set of facts in the past must be applied to the analogous set of present facts.

It's ok to do something new or different, but "precedent" then may not be used to justify this new course of action.

Hope this helps!

[kentauros]

38. My understanding of a precedent is that it cannot be used retro-actively,

as you implied in your previous post. Now, you're ignoring that point which makes my previous post seem nonsensical. It's interesting that a look at the dictionary definition supports my previous understanding of this word and its use in this particular story. A precedent doesn't have to be made in the past to be one today. They get "made" even in the present as in this particular instance.

Okay, I've made my points in this endless discussion while you seem to want to just keep it going even though you've made yours as well. Fine, have at it. I'm bowing out as there's nothing new to say or argue over. So, you won! :hi:

[Romulox]

41. In order to be an AUTHORITY as to a present situation, a "precedent" indeed must exist in the past

A "precedent" in the making is not a "precedent" until it is formed. Just like a caterpillar is not a butterfly.

First hit from your search link, btw:

"In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body ."

[yava]

39. Romulox: and what if NASA can save lives here?

[Tesha]

29. Hey, if we're talking "sudden acceleration", who better to talk about it than NASA?

"17,000 MPH or bust!"

Tesha

[Romulox]

4. Why is the US government bailing out Toyota...AGAIN????

:wtf:

[harun]

6. Because they are killing its citizens.

[Romulox]

9. It's the US government's job to ban and regulate deadly products...not its job to fix them. nt

[harun]

13. Finding the problem isn't fixing the problem. Not sure if Toyota has

to pay for some or all of the testing. I doubt they would get it all for free.

I would also hope if NASA finds the issue and it is universally applicable to drive by wire systems that Toyota should not be able to patent the fix. The fix should be publicly available for use without having to pay royalties to Toyota.

I see where you are coming from but I think it could help society enough to be worth it.

[Romulox]

15. It's more corporatism. Lipstick on the pig notwithstanding. nt

[FarCenter]

22. Has beens and old fogies?

Most of the really good NASA people were gone by the mid-70s. National Academy of Science is mainly "mature" scientists who did something great earlier in their career.

They should have looked for people in industry involved with highly-reliable, mission critical embedded microprocessor controls.

Experienced engineers with real world design experience in avionics companies, medical instrument companies, embedded systems software companies and the like.

[kentauros]

24. I'm guessing you're not too up-to-date on NASA these days...

http://www.techbriefs.com
http://www.techbriefs.com/whitepapers

[Romulox]

26. Houston...we have a vested interest! nt

[kentauros]

28. Why not?

You seem to have a vested interest in what your home state (Michigan) produces ;)

[FarCenter]

30. These Tech Brief appear to all be short papers/brochures from various companies

I went to http://www.techbriefs.com/whitepapers/electronics-whitepaper, registered, and downloaded a few.

The PDFs that I downloaded were authored by various other companies, not by NASA. I chose several that were in the embedded microprocessor area.

This is my recollection of meeting with some people from Manned Spaceflight Center -- they were mainly interested in pumping vendors for information.

[kentauros]

32. Okay, fair enough.

It's just that NASA employees number a lot less than contractor employees (ratio is something like three to one, contractor to government employees) so you're likely to see more company white papers than government ones.

Maybe Pres. Obama's increase in their funding for research will improve things that way :)

[FarCenter]

35. More budget won't necessarily help

The GS levels at which engineers were hired did not carry salary levels high enough to compete for top talent with private industry.

Maybe that is changing due to the downturn in private industry.

But generally, government projects throw a lot of poorly paid, mediocore bodies at a project and attempt to compensate for lack of talent with lots of process.

[slackmaster]

31. They should smash a Corolla into the Moon to see what happens

:hi:

[kentauros]

33. No, it should be a Prius

since the electric motors will still work in a vacuum :P

[ejbrush]

40. I would've gone with the NTSB...

but you know, passenger automobiles, orbital physics, potatoe potahto.