The latest tragedy with the space shuttle begs the question...

[p_p_man]

is the technology out of date?

Over 30 years old now with hardly an improvement on the original design the once held belief that 1 shuttle tragedy will happen after every 100 flights still seems to hold true.

Sometime back I watched a TV programme about other methods of escaping from the Earth's gravitational pull that are being explored. The usual drawback of a lack of funding is stopping this research from proceeding at an encouraging pace.

I always have thought that to place human beings on top of what is no more than a huge controlled explosion to propel them into space seemed a little bit amateurish for what is hoping to be achieved.

Perhaps now it's time to invest in other avenues and move away from rocket power...

ppman

 

[JerseyBoy]

i would say so...seeing that even if they knew there was damage to the shuttle there was no way to fix and no way to dock with any space station...basically fucked

Somehow I would have thought NASA would already be finishing the new technology by now and not deciding if they should start thinking about it...

 

[Guest]

I'm wondering why do we need to send people up at all. Can't we send remote controled robots instead or something?

 

[p_p_man]

The whole Space Program appears to be...

bogged down in a sort of lethargy.

Send some astronauts up, let them carry out a few experiments (and by now I would have thought there were no more experiments they could do) and then bring them back again.

Mira is an aging Space Station with maintenance problems, a trip to the Moon hasn't happened in I don't know how many years and Mars has only been reached a couple of times.

As I believe that one day the survival of our entire species will rely in breaking away from Earth I would be happier if things went along at a faster pace...

But first things first. A reliable and safe way to send Man into space should be found before we go much further...

ppman

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Perhaps now it's time to invest in other avenues and move away from rocket power...

...without which you would not be able to convey these words to the world.

 

[Bidin~Time]

Re: Re: The latest tragedy with the space shuttle begs the question...

...without which you would not be able to convey these words to the world.

Good point.

You have only to make a quick pass through your home to see what the space race has given us. ummm....velcro is an example.

As far as moving ahead, the scientists, not just at NASA but all over the world engage in never-ending research and development.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

is the technology out of date?

Over 30 years old now with hardly an improvement on the original design the once held belief that 1 shuttle tragedy will happen after every 100 flights still seems to hold true.

Sometime back I watched a TV programme about other methods of escaping from the Earth's gravitational pull that are being explored. The usual drawback of a lack of funding is stopping this research from proceeding at an encouraging pace.

I always have thought that to place human beings on top of what is no more than a huge controlled explosion to propel them into space seemed a little bit amateurish for what is hoping to be achieved.

Perhaps now it's time to invest in other avenues and move away from rocket power...

ppman

All good and valid questions, Peeper.

I think that technology is being persued. There are rumors here of the "Aurora" project that may be using a form of hyper-ramjet that could fly to the edges of space at speeds approaching mach 8 or 10. That's only half that of Columbia when she failed. Thrust in outer space will always require some form of exotic, dangerous source.

Your belief that a rocket is a controlled explosion is correct as long as you concede that your auto engine is the exact same thing, done 6000 times per minute. Oxygen and Hydrogen no more explode when mixed than anything else that burns, whether it be fuel in a jet engine or the wood in a match. If it is amatuerish, it is because man's quest for knowledge and exploration outstrips his ability to push technology. Sailing downwind across the Atlantic Ocean would be a perfect example.

Remember, the shuttle is still the most complicated device ever created by man. It produces the brightest controlled light ever made by man, as well as the loudest noise. It carries fragile men at speeds exceeding 5 miles per second. It shelters those men from temperatures of 3000 degrees that exist only inches from their bodies. It protects them from the near absolut zero temperature of space. It travels over 6,000,000 miles in a typical mission, then returns to touch a spot within feet of it's intended target at a speed that many race cars can travel.

The fault does not dwell in our scientists, technology or systems. I think the fault rests with us, who have become jadded with the march of technology around us. Open your eyes to the wonder!

I still marvel at the technology of jet flight. Millions of people each day are transported billions of miles in what only 100 years ago would have been seen as an instant of time.

We look too much for "heros" in this world, and fail to see those few who are still doing "Heroic" things!

Rhumb

 

[WynEternal]

Wow. Great post, Rhumb.

 

[ithaqua]

It's a matter of funding.

We send robots to space all the time, even send them to other planets. The robot missions do not garner the type of attention manned missions do though, and so are not as well funded.

I'm wondering why do we need to send people up at all. Can't we send remote controled robots instead or something?

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Every safety report for the last couple of years, since funding has been dramatically decreased for Shuttle maintenance and operation, has said that the current state of the Shuttle program is the most dangerous since it began. Technology didn't destroy Columbia -- cut funding did. That's what will be determined a solid year from now.

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: The latest tragedy with the space shuttle begs the question...

All good and valid questions, Peeper.

And an interesting reply Rhumb...

I can only agree with everything you say. There is a danger of course that we as bystanders want to push further and faster. But if the technology is not there it can't be done. We crave and need spectacular achievements to keep our interest alive.

I do think that rocket technology was the wrong road to take and I hope that the mistake can be rectified, perhaps with the Aurora Project. Years ago there was also talk of flight into space being made by a fixed wing vehicle boosted on it's way by reaching the required breakaway speed, or close to it, on especially designed tracks here on earth. A bit like a very fast train! Sounds a bit far fetched I know but at the time it was greeted with excitement and enthusiasm. It was called Hottel or something like that.

And only in the last few years an idea first originated by Arther C Clarke, yes that man again, about the ability to reach space by the use of, for want of a better word, elevators was being considered seriously.

There are plenty of ideas around. They just need serious investment...

ppman

 

[JazzManJim]

Re: The whole Space Program appears to be...

But first things first. A reliable and safe way to send Man into space should be found before we go much further...

And this isn't going to happen, because it's impossible.

Going into space is inherently dangerous and nothing on anyone's drawing boards will make it safe, or even reliable to the degree that most folks consider reliable.

For instance, given what we ask of them, the shuttles are incredibly reliable. And as for age, the oldest shuttle is less than half the age of most countries' airplane fleet - military and civilian. Chances are if you've flown commercially, you've done so on an airplane that's 30 years old.

But back to my original topic. Spaceflight is the most dangerous thing mankind has ever accomplished. A body in space is subject to the possibilities of hard vacuum, radiation in varieties and intensity that no one on Earth experiences, physical effects of weightlessness which bring on increased muscle atrophy and bone disorders (such as osteoporosis), debris moving at incredible speeds, incredible heat and cold at different points, and extreme forces of gravity. These will always be present regardless of the spacecraft we use, no matter the technology level.

The very best we will be able to do is to accept that spaceflight is dangerous and plan to handle those risks the bet possible way. IMO, NASA has managed that fairly well despite its bureaucratic strata and gross underfunding in the last decade. Consider that in 42 years of spaceflight, we've lost 3 craft with humans on board. That's it. That's really freaking impressive.

Having said that, though, my wish is for NASA to get out of the launch business altogether and to buy the launches they require from private launch companies.

 

[Guest]

Mach 8-10!? What kind of G-force would that create on the pilots?

Yea, pp, A.C Clark's elevator idea was funky. He's as wacky as that Japanese invention nutter.

 

[Nobby Stiles]

Re: The whole Space Program appears to be...

bogged down in a sort of lethargy.


Mira is an aging Space Station with maintenance problems, a trip to the Moon hasn't happened in I don't know how many years and Mars has only been reached a couple of times.

ppman

Eh? I thought Mir came down in the pacific last year.

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: The whole Space Program appears to be...

Eh? I thought Mir came down in the pacific last year.

Oops!



ppman

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: The whole Space Program appears to be...

Originally posted by JazzManJim
And as for age, the oldest shuttle is less than half the age of most countries' airplane fleet - military and civilian. Chances are if you've flown commercially, you've done so on an airplane that's 30 years old.

Which does show that, given the heavier work load of airplanes, the Shuttle is a very risky prospect indeed.

Having said that, though, my wish is for NASA to get out of the launch business altogether and to buy the launches they require from private launch companies.

Yes that could well be the way to go. Take the whole matter out of the hands of Government and pass it over to private enterprise...

ppman

 

[Problem Child]

Re: Re: Re: The whole Space Program appears to be...

Which does show that, given the heavier work load of airplanes, the Shuttle is a very risky prospect indeed.



ppman

It doesn't show that at all pp. Try taking a 747 and flying it through the earth's atmosphere at mach 20 and see what happens.

The two vehicles operate in very different environments and the shuttle has to endure fantastically greater forces.

 

[ksmybuttons]

Ishmael had an interesting thread on this yesterday.

Ish's thread.

Technology builds on itself. They are still learning so much, not just about the propulsion system, but about all aspects of space flight. Creative minds are out there and new ones are being trained in our schools acrossed the country. Creative thought has always been a strong suit of the United States. Someone, somewhere will have the inspiration and it will happen.

I believe it is very important to continue to move forward with the space program, both through the government and the private sector.



I won't live to see it in my lifetime, but long range dreams and goals are important: the magic of life.

 

[Lost Cause]

Scramjets...

Like with our Pegasus rocket, carried to high altitude by an L-1011 at 600 mph. The rocket is dropped, a solid fuel booster carries it into orbit. We can achieve the same results with an orbiter, a low angle of ascent and reentry, minimizes structural and crew threat. The scramjet can operate at high altitude to provide a slower reentry, plus powered manuverablility.

Also, terraform Mars! Let's get off this dustball!

 

[Ms_Lilith]

"Begging the Question"

You misused the term.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy where you assume your conclusion as the first premise in an argument, in order to argue to it as a conclusion.

ie:

the sky was blue.
there were no clouds in the sky.
the sun shone.

Therefore: the sky was blue.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Re: Re: Re: The latest tragedy with the space shuttle begs the question...

And an interesting reply Rhumb...

I can only agree with everything you say. There is a danger of course that we as bystanders want to push further and faster. But if the technology is not there it can't be done. We crave and need spectacular achievements to keep our interest alive.

I do think that rocket technology was the wrong road to take and I hope that the mistake can be rectified, perhaps with the Aurora Project. Years ago there was also talk of flight into space being made by a fixed wing vehicle boosted on it's way by reaching the required breakaway speed, or close to it, on especially designed tracks here on earth. A bit like a very fast train! Sounds a bit far fetched I know but at the time it was greeted with excitement and enthusiasm. It was called Hottel or something like that.

And only in the last few years an idea first originated by Arther C Clarke, yes that man again, about the ability to reach space by the use of, for want of a better word, elevators was being considered seriously.

There are plenty of ideas around. They just need serious investment...

ppman

I think that is why we need, in our enthusiasm for great ventures, to temper our own desires with the knowledge of those familiar with what is possible and what is "too risky". As JMJ pointed out so well, we will never have a "safe, reliable" way into space. We don't have a "safe" way to cross the street.

Rockets are the only foreseeable solution to lift million or more pound payloads to an altitude that acceleration can then be begun to achieve orbital velocity. We have two problems to solve right there. One is to get to an altitude where there is no significant atmosphere remaining (about 300,000 ft.) AND to attain a forward (tangent to the Earth's surface) velocity of 25,700 ft/sec. That speed will carry you constantly over the "edge" of the Earth as you constantly fall back to Earth. The brilliant soul who came up with the idea of accelerating to orbital velocity never knew about or conveniently failed to point out, that the compress heating on a body in Earth's atmosphere would probably exceed the melting point of any known element or alloy by several factors. We see Columbia heating to 3000 degrees slowing from 17,300 MPH. What do you suppose the heating would be trying to accelerate to the 30,000 to 40,000 MPH that would be required to gain 150 miles altitude and overcome the friction of traveling at that speed within the atmosphere? Please name something that will withstand temperatures in the 10,000 to 12,000 degree range and at the same time provide insulation for a human body sitting a foot or two away. As to Clarke's idea of an elevator, that could "possibly" be done. Then all we need is a means to accelerate to 17,500 miles per hour. Otherwise the "body" lands on top of the guy standing at the base of the elevator looking up! How did "Old Arthur" propose reaching orbital speed in a VERY short time (gravity works constantly and quickly?) As an interesting side note here, Peeps, the "retro" burn of the shuttle slows its speed 176 MPH. That is all that is required to begin the process of "re-entry"! It begins about 1/2 orbit and about an hour away from the destination.

I'm glad we didn't invest in "elevators"!

Rhumb

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The latest tragedy with the space shuttle begs the question...

I'm glad we didn't invest in "elevators"!

Rhumb

Without any reference to Arthur C. Clarke this link explains how they will work and that NASA is investigating the possibility.

Although a tower 50 kilometres high seems a bit daunting!

How Space Elevators Will Work

ppman

 

[p_p_man]

In fact now I've looked...

there's quite a bit on the net about Space Elevators.

Just one more link for interest's sake...

Space Elevators



ppman

 

[medjay]

Don't worry everyone. I'm hard at work on an invention that will render space travel completely unnecessary!

Yes! Coming soon will be my teleportation machine! You've heard it here first! But it won't be a "Star Trek" type beam but more of a Dr. Who-esque TARDIS with a comfy interior.

Anyone interested in helping to fund this groundbreaking project can feel free to e-mail me with the $ amount of your donation.

 

[MunchinMark]

Yeah, sure Arthur C. Clarke is crazy. He introduced the idea of communications sattelites.

He has described several possible ways to escape into space. An improved launch system will probably resemble one of them because he was (I haven't seena new book recently, but I'm not sure if he's dead) so prolific.

There are collossal engineering challenges in building a space elevator, but if you could build one and start bring stuff down (like minerals) then it suddenly becomes energy efficient. Of course tell that to the people paying for it in the first place.