Posted on 02/04/2003 9:08:47 AM PST by TLBSHOW
Yes! Why don't people get this! The research is a joke too. "Growing diatoms for terraforming other planets!" That's the kind of junk science they are calling research.
Until 5 years ago, the processors in your VCR were more powerful than those in the shuttle
How exactly does this change the fact/the physics that A) you have to get into space and B) you have to re-enter the earth's atmosphere, preferably via non-powered flight (like the shuttle - little cost in extra required fuels, etc.)?
What's plugged in back there in the electronics bay and doing control of the flight surfaces is rather irrelevant - if it gets the job done.
Face it, sometimes it's easier to simply throw a project awayRiddle me your answer on the re-entry 'phase' - do you have a better material or re-entry method in mind rather than the present scheme that requires heat tiles as presently used (a cite, a paper, a web site would do your arguments good too).
Evolution is the technique nature has used to 'solve the problems' of life in various life forms, yet man thinks he can can create techically comparable miracles from scratch? Ha ha ha ha. Even innovation in industry doesn't work that way (witness Jack Kilby's invention of the IC for instance).
Come to think of it - wasn't the shuttle the result of 'clean slate' throw-out-the-huge-non-resuable launch vehicle thinking too? Ans where has it gotten us ...
And a real bargain at 200 billion dollars. That's the actual price I'm hearing.
THIS argment is wholly lame.
We have, even during the 20 odd some years of the STS made *substantial* improvements and changes to the shuttle "series" - in *all* areas: TPS (heat tiles), propulsion, cockpit instrumentation, computers, APUs, basis frame design - *you* name it and tht system has been redesigned and improved *based* on actual operation.
A *new* system - one based solely on concept will have to undergo this *same* 'learning of lessions' that the contracters and NASA have had to learn - and here, with the shuttle, we have already learned those IMPORTANT lessons, drawn up the prints, designed the gear, written the test and operational procedures, tested it and FLOWN it ...
Again, this arg is wholly lame and not in any way comparable to the reality of the situation ...
What if - what if I told you they use carbon-carbon already?
Hmmm?
Once the lunar base is established, go to Mars...
Go ahead, on your dime. I'd opt out if they didn't have their guns trained on me.
I agree. I also think that it's time to review the idea of a reuseable payload section, and go to far cheaper big dumb boosters built for a tiny fraction of the cost of a reuseable shuttle.
What sense does it make to bring back to earth after every flight a huge empty payload bay? How many times have we needed a shuttle sized bay for bringing a cargo back down to earth?
Big boosters which are one shot deals could be built in shipyard type settings for pennies on the dollar compared to reuseable shuttle type vehicles that are built in "clean rooms". IOW, you can buy 50 Ford F-250s for the price of one Formula One race car.
The booster gets the payload and crew into orbit, then you ditch it in the ocean! Enormous, and very safe boosters can be CHEAP to build...if they are built for one shot instead of 100.
Bring the crew back in an Apollo type capsule purpose built for safe reentry and recovery, without the vulnerable wheel wells etc.
Whatever the insulating material, it must be PROTECTED on the way up, to ensure that it is pristine for reentry!
That is where the "Big Dumb Booster" excells. The small crew only reentry vehicle is totally protected on launch, Apollo style.
What is the point of bringing down enormous EMPTY payload bays, and trying to land like a glider? Why not use huge CHEAP boosters to get the payload to orbit, and have a purpose built capsule for the crew?
One shot boosters would be cheaper in the long run than what we are spending on shuttles...and safter too.
You might generate less flames if you would check the attitude.
Who said they didn't? I was speaking of the next vehicle.
If the '70 Chevy had been well maintained and retrofit with high-quality aftermarket components over the years (wherever possible), why not? It'd still be quite functional.
I have no problems with taking a good look at newer shuttle designs at this point in time. I'm just not prepared to assume that a "new" design is going to be a panacea for the challenges that face the "antiquated" design. Let's face it, both a '70 Chevy and a '03 Chevy still have 4 wheels. But it's the '70 Chevy that is likely to have space for a full size spare tire. Plus you have a little extra elbow room to change the spark plugs and oil filter.
From the Space Shuttle handbook:
The RCC panels are mechanically attached to the wing with a series of floating joints to reduce loading on the panels caused by wing deflections. The seal between each wing leading edge panel is referred to as a T-seal. The T-seals allow for lateral motion and thermal expansion differences between the RCC and the orbiter wing. In addition, they prevent the direct flow of hot boundary layer gases into the wing leading edge cavity during entry. The T-seals are constructed of RCC.Since carbon is a good thermal conductor, the adjacent aluminum and the metallic attachments must be protected from exceeding temperature limits by internal insulation. Inconel 718 and A-286 fittings are bolted to flanges on the RCC components and are attached to the aluminum wing spars and nose bulkhead. Inconel-covered cerachrome insulation protects the metallic attach fittings and spar from the heat radiated from the inside surface of the RCC wing panels.
The nose cap thermal insulation ues a blanket made from ceramic fibers and filled with silica fibers. HRSI or FRCI tiles are used to protect the forward fuselage from the heat radiated from the hot inside surface of the RCC.
I'm just curious if you also think it's an insult to homicide, robbery, or assault victims when their family and friends exercise their God given talents to investigate who
carried out those crimes, when the police are unable to asertain who did it? In this instance we have an agency that has two vested interests, full disclosure and the
welfare of the agency itself. Why it would be an insult to the astronauts to make sure they weren't short-changed in the process, is beyond me.
I have seen the product of your logic before. It's generally interesting, but seldom very sound. Don't give up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.