Shuttle Loss Highlights Need for New Space Vehicle

reuters ^ | 2/4/2003 | Andrea Shalal-Esa

[_Jim]

"breath on them and they break" fragile tiles

A red herring argument.

MANY of these tiles have survived substanyially intact during a hair 'more than just a breath' while falling from +200,000 feet (NOT to mention some sort of explosion while up there at Mach 18).

I now think that is was the RCC in the left wing's leading edge -

- part of the LESS (Leading Edge Structural Subsystem) system

- that was damaged during lift-off ...

How 'bout them apples?

[CWOJackson]

Today we pay tribute to seven brave people. These seven people were combat pilots, aeronautical engineers, scientists…astronauts. Many of them had been with the space program for years, for others this was the culmination of their dreams.

Within hours of this terrible disaster there were some on FR claiming that the disaster was the result of NASA’s incompetence, that the disaster was avoidable and that the cover up had already began. They have offered up memo’s, doctored photos and wild rumor as evidence. In order to be true than we must also assume that the seven astronauts who died were fools or somehow duplicitous in their own deaths. Are we expected to believe that the knowledge of a few rumor mongers on the internet is greater then that of those who flew on Challenger?

Are we to believe that these seven astronauts were not aware of the foam problems on the shuttle program or the effects of budget cuts on the program? Are we to believe that they were foolish enough to fly a platform into space that was doomed from the beginning as some on FR claim?

If we accept their speculation then we must also assume that their fellow astronauts, walking the woodlands of east Texas looking for their remains, will not seek to discover the real cause of their deaths, but will work to cover up for NASA. Do you really believe this?

Is this what we’ve come to on FR? This doesn’t just smear NASA, it smears the seven brave people we honor today.

You find this embarassing? This is the product of your logic?

[hopespringseternal]

A lot of what drives the cost of the shuttle is the need for absolute reliability in so many systems run at the very edge of capability. Hence the term "rocket science." Basically, everything ever sent into space has been operated like a race car. What is needed is more akin to a panel truck.

The shuttle is not so much reuseable as salvageable. It is exhaustively inspected and many systems are rebuilt with each flight. That is why it takes so long to turn one around. This is a direct consequence of running everything at the bleeding edge of its capability and needing it to be extremely reliable.

Because it is such a large and relatively dense object, the thermal protection system has more stringent requirements. A larger area must be protected against higher temperatures than another configuration.

Repeated attempts at a shuttle successor have been stymied by politics and bureaucratic incompetence.

[hopespringseternal]

RCC is, BTW, no substitute for insulation of some sort

Neither is titanium. If you aren't going to go with a hot structure, the difference is that the insulation is only exposed to thermal loads rather than aerodynamic loads.

[Mike Darancette]

Once the lunar base is established, go to Mars..

We need a goal like the one set by JFK. Not the aimless wanderings of our current program.

If need be sell shares, like England did, for the exploration and exploitation of the Moon and Mars.

If we don't get off the dime we'll be paying a toll to Chinese Merchants for going to Mars and the Asteroids.

[Hodar]

You stated that limiting the arguement to equipment was lame. My view is that limiting the equipment to a specific design is a poor way to conduct business. Different shuttle design, for different missions. As faster processors can not only detect and process information faster than humans, they can also simulate issues before they happen, and thus avoid problems. Add to this the fly-by-wire technology that would prevent an astronaut from making an over-correction.

We had a set back, and this should be a chance to re-energize the space program. Pump money into it, and investigate ideas/designs that have occurred in the last 40 years. Functionality will remain the same, but the way that things happen will be safer, cheaper and more efficient. The way an automobile engine works today is similar to the way it worked 30-40 years ago; but the improvements are in the details.

http://www.vidi.com/experts/bobspage/shuttles/shuttles.html

[Travis McGee]

You sidestep my point. The exposed shuttle tiles ARE fragile, and they are located a few yards from the spray foam insulation on the LOX tank which is in a habit of breaking off in large chunks at mach speed after liftoff.

Russian Roullette.

The Columbia lost.

Much better to keep the reentry vehicle safely away from liftoff and boost phase peril.

[Travis McGee]

What do you think of the cheaper "big dumb booster" concept I outlined compared to as you put it "salvageable" shuttles?

It just seems to me that all things equal, a solution to getting payload into space which protects, simplifies, and minimizes in size the crew reentry vehicle is hard to argue against.

[RightWhale]

For some time to come, there should be a rescue vehicle sitting on the pad during every manned launch. In addition to that, the Space Shuttle should carry a minimum of freight. Space Hab is an idea that is probably at an end. The ISS should be doing all the science from here on. A new vehicle should be used to launch heavy freight, oversize freight, and not any crew. That is, Space Shuttle should fly nearly empty and with reduced crew for the forseeable future.

[hopespringseternal]

"Big dumb booster" is a sound concept that has never really been implemented because it runs counter to the "rocket scientist" culture of bleeding edge performance and extreme reliability.

It is another good idea that is often proposed and often ignored.

[RightWhale]

How long would it take to build the BDB based on Space Shuttle technology? Seems like it would be relatively quick since the SRBs and the external tank and the main engines are already in a state of constant production.

[hopespringseternal]

It doesn't seem like it would take very long, does it? And you would be talking about massive lifting capability. This has been looked at before. I think it was called Shuttle-C?

The biggest obstacle is that congress has never been in the mood to approve anything that needed that kind of lifting capability.

[HairOfTheDog]

Today we pay tribute to seven brave people. These seven people were combat pilots, aeronautical engineers, scientists…astronauts. Many of them had been with the space program for years, for others this was the culmination of their dreams.

...This doesn’t just smear NASA, it smears the seven brave people we honor today.

Thank you for saying it! Enough of the fingerpointing and screeching by people who have no stake in this, no expertise, and no repercussions if they are wrong. Let NASA solve this. It is their project, their passion, and they are the ones who have to really know the right answer. They'll find it.

[HairOfTheDog]

Oh yeah.... Space exploration is a profitable enterprise! < /sarc >

[RightWhale]

NASA is unconstitutional by its very existence.

Presidents Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams would probably agree somewhat. And then act tyranically to build a Space Transportation System and send out Lewis and Clark all over again. Sometimes a President has to act tyranically for the good of the nation. Reality trumps idealism.

[Travis McGee]

It seems like BDB would be a good place for private industry to come it.

Of course, it's hard to beat subsidized govt. cost shuttle launches.

[Travis McGee]

I think NASA has always struggled to kill a privately funded BDB in its crib.

Maybe they should be more open minded; a BDB rescue vehicle capability alone would be worthwhile!

Certainly a ten man "Apollo" type reentry vehicle that is not beaten to crap on the way into space would be a better way to go.

[Republic of Texas]

Well put. The Shuttles were fine for their time, but that time is gone. We can do better.

[Travis McGee]

"to come in."

[RightWhale]

Oh, yeah. Have that Big, Dumb Rescue Vehicle ready to go at all times there is anyone in space or about to launch into space. It would take some of the edge off the excitement of go-for-broke, and the rocket ride into orbit would be just as awesome. Win-win.