From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Sun Feb 02 2003 - 07:13:25 MST
On Sunday, February 02, 2003 3:01 AM Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
> 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.
I've always been skeptical of the tiles for another reason. The system
looks like it's designed to fail, since it has to many points where
catastrophic failure can happen and from a maintenance/repair/inspection
point of view looks like a nightmare. I'm surprised fatal failures
didn't happen earlier in this area.
> 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.
I agree. This is generally the market vs. government here. Early
aircraft technological advances were, to a large extent, decentralized
and small firms competing. Space technology, sadly, is massively
government funded -- save for a few small companies (XCOR comes to mind)
that might bring in a wave of development like happened early last
century with airplanes.
> 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.
The Saturn Vs seemed to fit that bill, if you ask me. A revamped design
of them might provide something better than the current Shuttle program
in terms of no frills chemical rocketry. I know we've discussed this
issue here before, but I'd like to explore this idea in more depth and
run some numbers to see if this is worth doing. Anybody with me here?
Cheers!
Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
See "For a Free Frontier: The Case for Space Colonization" at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/SpaceCol.html
See "Space: The Forgotten Frontier" at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/SpaceForgot.html
See "A Late Answer to Bob Black" [on space commercialization] at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/Black.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:09 MST