From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Date: Sun Feb 02 2003 - 01:01:24 MST
<<Perhaps tonight I'll dream of standing naked before my grade school class
with tears streaming down my cheeks as students taunt me with questions such
as: HOW, HOW, HOW, will you control jillions of durable, microscopic robots
that breed even faster than rabbits, if thousands of scientists, engineers,
computers, backup systems, and checks and balances can't even keep one big
stupid macro vehicle from becoming an expensive photogenic meteor?
Well, goodnight to you all. I'm sincerely sorry for your loss, however you
may feel it.
Russell Evermore>>
Some thoughts in response to your question?
1. The threat from nanotech (gray goo etc.) may emerge as a serious issue
far, far, later then most of this list would like. This also means that the
promise of nanotech to revolutionize the world have been overstated; much as
promises of cheap nuclear power, and early human landings on Mars. Again,
this magical realm of technology may emerge many decades later then expected,
by the worthies here.
2. I was reading a suggested reason for the disaster today. One possibility
was the peeling of the "thermal protective tiles" on the left wing of the
shuttle. My concern is that we are still using, from a materials-science
point of view, nomex or nextel tiles. This is ridiculous (if true) and speaks
poorly of the aerospace firms that have continued to maintain the shuttles.
Glue-on thermal tiles are definitely not the way to go, especially if the
article I just read is proven true. There are metal alloys that would add
weight, but serve even better for heat resistance. We haven't even spoken
about advanced concepts aerospace planes. These need to be focused on, and
the teams that decide who builds what concept needs to be redone.
3. Visionary Physicist, Freeman Dyson (as opposed to other physicists who
merely collect checks) notes that certain big projects supported by
governments, tend to be projects where one cannot afford to fail. The Shuttle
is but one of these, the dirigibles of the 1920's and 1930's were another.
One of the reasons, Dyson gives for the triumph of the airplane over the
dirigible is that planes were robust, and their technology advanced extremely
rapidly, compared to the dirigible. Dyson would conclude (me thinks) that we
need a space program that lends opportunity for lots of experimentation for
getting safely to orbit and back.
We need something that is a more reliable workhorse. This Shuttle takes lives
every time it fails. This is the kind of bull puckey we, as tax payers,
should not have to abide.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:09 MST