Cult of the Shuttle

[LunaSea]

Op Ed on NASA and the Shuttle by Homer Hickam

"It is practiced like a religion by space policy makers who
simply cannot imagine an American space agency without the Shuttle. Well, I can and it is a space agency which can
actually fly people and cargoes into orbit without everybody involved being terrified of imminent death and destruction
every time the Shuttle lifts off the pad."

www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=855

[Uroboros]

1. Interesting piece, but wrong in some respects

Wrong in that the cause of BOTH shuttle accidents really had more do do with human error or negligence, then they did with the design of the shuttle. That's not to say that it isn't time for it to be replaced eventually with something new. Of course it should be; it's a 30+ year old design.

But consider the first shuttle accident. The "O" rings failed. But they didn't fail because of a design flaw; they failed because they were pushed beyond the limits of their design. The shuttle was launched during temperatures far below what was safe. And NASA was warned about this.

As for this last shuttle accident; again human error. This wasn't the first time foam had fallen off the external tank. It had happened before. This should have made NASA consider what might happen if a piece a large foam struck the shuttle on take off. Tests should have been conducted. Test done after the accident showed the damage that such foam could cause. Perhaps someone at NASA considered the possibility to be an unlikely one; and decided to live with it. Again human error or negligence, not design flaw

Interestingly enough the external tanks on early shuttle flights where painted white. The paint was later removed at a weight saving measure. But that point would have provided some protection against what happen.

The shuttle accident was tragic and perhaps preventable. But we all seem to forget that since the shuttles have been flying; there have been only TWO accidents. There have been many more airplane crashes in that time period; but no one ever argues that perhaps we should give passengers parachutes or that safer methods of air flight should be developed (ones where falling from the sky doesn't equal almost instant death)

Anyhow I don't think the answer is moth-balling the shuttle just yet; but to commit ourselves to replacing the technology. Unfortunately it seems that we're unwilling to spend money on those kinds of things. Every time a program is in the design stages it invariably gets canceled due to budget cuts.

Unfortunately with the present administration preferring to spend billions on constant warfare (and the budget deficit they're creating); were stuck with the shuttle for a while it seems.

Why am I writing so much,I should be sleeping. :)

[LunaSea]

2. I believe the flaw he referred to

is the whole system. The shuttles original conception was substantially different from what it became. Look at his line in the last paragraph.
"this time put it on top"
Ever hear of a vehicle called the X-20 or DynaSoar? (If you ever saw the movie "Marooned", the rescue vehicle depicted was quite similar)

It was a small space plane fitted at the top of an existing missile.
Concepts like that, or the 2 vehicle design (a tankerplane and an orbiter launched together, split apart and land separately) were perhaps better designs, but unfortunatly, more expensive.
Shuttle was nickeled and dimed into the configuration we have today.
Solid rocket motors were seen as a quicker,cheaper alternative, and resulted in a vehicle that is dangerous to launch. If we had used a different configuration for a shuttle, with no SRBs or not strapped to the side of a fuel tank, perhaps the design would have been safer.

Its a real shame we abandoned the heavy lift capability of the Saturn rocket.

[Forkboy]

3. the shuttle program in a nutshell

it goes up,it comes down,it goes up,it comes down,it goes up,it comes down.

Real inspirational stuff I tell ya :eyes: