Comments on: Unmanned is better

By: Roberto Benitez

Roberto Benitez — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 06:19:42 +0000

Here’s answers to two points. First, foam insulation on the STS fuel tank is meant to prevent ice buildup due to the cold skin from the LOX and liquid hydrogen. But it doesn’t prevent all the build up and can come loose from moisture between it and the tank as tragically demonstrated. Also, the foam helps keep the tanks cool to prevent “boil off” or pressure build up of the lox and bagels, oops, fuel.
Secondly, the shuttle may seem twenty five years old and the technology even older to many amateurs. However, most of the major systems have been upgraded and even replaced with newer parts several times. It’s an ongoing program.
Consider this, we fly B-52s that are technically 40–50 years old which were conceived and designed during WW II. They too have been upgraded many times, even including the skins of the aircraft.

By: Hans-Ole

Hans-Ole — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 04:47:50 +0000

I think its a great idea that the US seeks space supprimacy with vehicles like this “glider” and the technology for making a real spaceplane are not far away. Like f.eks. the pulse-detonation-engine, or the scramjet such techknolegys could easyly been used in a real spaceplane, that could strike anywhere on the globe in minuttes. I really hope Oncle Sam can pulled it off, because no other nation must be allowed to have these capabillytyes.
Hans-ole from Denmark.

By: louis soltis

louis soltis — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 19:34:16 +0000

Yes, the space program should continue but with the KISS principle as the designing criteria for a new resuable spacecraft. The space plane is a first critical step in access and ferry people to space for eventually research, manufacturing, tourism and exploration. Goods could be launched using alternate technologies, such as, the RAIL GUN to low earth orbit. The energy needed could come from a nuclear reactor or new solar technology which keeps a kilowatt produced down to 50 cents.. see National Geographic.
The Breakthrough physics program needs to continue seeking alternate physics and technology to access space… The rewards in all areas of human endeavors will benefit with our pursuit and establishment of a permanent presence in the cosmos.
lou

By: davod

davod — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:40:35 +0000

The debris falling from the external fuel tanks has been called the foam insulation. Can someone tell me why there is insulation on components that do not go into space. I can understand ice but insulation.
From a non technical point of view isn’t it time to lock some bright (and not so bright) non space people into a room for a brainstorming session. Sometimes being to close to a problem blinds you to the obvious solution.

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 02:24:00 +0000

As long as I can't afford a new vehicle NASA can do with what they have. Government programs have always been fat in the wallet for those "unforseen" items of urgent need. Well! I still works just fine! When my car breaks I fix it and always try to be more proactive to prevent any "unforseen" emergencies. The shuttles are (were) more than one and they don't fly them daily like we do our cars. All those engineers can't seem to fix old Humpty Dumpty. Why not ask an Air Force enlisted radio technician to do it. Oh, sorry they got outsourced to save money. Guess we need to throw it away and buy a new one. NOT!!! Fix the *#@!% thing already and move on.

By: thelm

thelm — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 01:14:59 +0000

I like this longer entry format where you give much more context… do more!

By: Adam B

Adam B — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:15:07 +0000

Now, the age of the aircraft cannot be compared to the likes of a family car for all kinds of reasons. Stress cycles, materials, weathering, maintainance and a mirriad of other things. Remember that the average age of civil aircraft is pretty large too, if you take data from http://av-info.faa.gov/GetFleetAge.asp (and pay attention to the disclaimer). The shuttle was also designed to make many more flights than it has. Hence, don’t use age alone as a basis for retirement.
Since shuttles are fairly individual craft with a range of novel manufacturing techniques you have to play by ear and observe any problems that may be occuring such as fatique based crack propogation, or indeed foam falling off, and if possible fix them.
I just hope the shuttle can work for its remaining lifespan with no further disasters.

By: david

david — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 12:18:57 +0000

We should have a good space program in some form or shape. The shuttle never delivered on its advertized cost per pound to deliver whatever and we clearly kept it operation past any reasonable safety limit. So be it, now it is time to move on to the next generation/phase of a meaningful space program. Our first problem is getting any poltics out of the process and letting our engineers and scientist have some maneuvering room. Good luck.

By: V.Colcol (Lambada)

V.Colcol (Lambada) — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:56:13 +0000

The space shuttle is an old space dump truck that should have been replace long time ago, but NASA still want to use an old relic from the past. As far as I know, there were two major disasters that claimed human life with the space shuttles Challenger and Columbia. Are we going to wait for a third disaster and loss more human life to keep this old relic flying back into space? Don’t get me wrong, I think the space shuttle was an aerospace vehicle marvel back in the late 70’s and 80’s, but it need to be
replace with a newer one that will take us into the future for our space program, safer and more reliable than what we got right now.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 06:39:13 +0000

Okay, picture a saturn 5, with a payload of a hundred or more cruise missiles…
But if your launching you space/cruise missile platform how do you avoid trigering a nuclear alert…