[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Our Delicate Space Program Rant (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 10/28/2009 5:14:07 AM EDT
|
I'm no engineer... but it seems like they make rockets out of snowflakes, soap bubbles, cotton candy, and stacks of Jenga blocks. What the fuck? I know that weight is a prime concern, but is it that hard to make a system that is a little more robust than "unable to launch if a shadow of a cloud falls upon it, lest it explode with the fury of a thousand suns"?
Not just Ares, but it seems like everything NASA does nowadays is like that. I guess Challenger/Columbia rattled everyone so badly that two decades later we are still oober-cautious. I would hope that after nearly a half century of building manned rockets, we would have systems that can launch under most normal weather conditions without issue. But then, I know dick about engineering, so this rant is worth every dime you paid for it. ETA: If I can break 3/10 on this rant, I'll be satisfied. |
|
Quoted: I'm no engineer... but it seems like they make rockets out of snowflakes, soap bubbles, cotton candy, and stacks of Jenga blocks. What the fuck? I know that weight is a prime concern, but is it that hard to make a system that is a little more robust than "unable to launch if a shadow of a cloud falls upon it, lest it explode with the fury of a thousand suns"? Not just Ares, but it seems like everything NASA does nowadays is like that. I guess Challenger/Columbia rattled everyone so badly that two decades later we are still oober-cautious. I would hope that after nearly a half century of building manned rockets, we would have systems that can launch under most normal weather conditions without issue. But then, I know dick about engineering, so this rant is worth every dime you paid for it. ETA: If I can break 3/10 on this rant, I'll be satisfied. Look up: " The best possible chance of success. " |
| Being able to launch in non-optimal weather is a requirement for launch vehicles in operational usage. But for early test flights, you want to minimize the chance of anything going wrong and to collect the best data possible to verify there are no design issues. This means avoiding clouds which can cause electrostatic discharge, ice erosion or visual obscuration problems. After a few test flights have worked out all the bugs, the launch vehicle should be able to handle non-optimal weather better than any liquid hydrogen rocket could ever do. |
| I'm thinking... they can build aircraft that can take off and operate in even the worst sorts of weather. Why can't they build a lift system that can launch even when it is a little overcast, with the occasional gusty of wind? I don't need them to launch a vehicle with eleventy-bazillion gallons of Explodium Q-19 fuel through a lightning storm to be proud of NASA, but EXPLODES BECAUSE SOME FOAM HIT THE SIDE seems sorta weak. |
| Actually, they're made better now than they used to be. The Atlas rocket used a fuel tank that was made of steel about the thickness of a dime and had to be pressurized or it would collapse. Weight is everything in rocketry. Too much weight and your payload mass fraction quickly drops to zero. |
|
Simplest way to put it....
When driving a car there are a million things that could break or go wrong that could end up with you getting hurt or inconvenienced, when trying to launch a space flight/rockets there are a million things that could break or go wrong that end in total failure and death. Why add bad weather to the mix. |
|
Quoted:
I'm thinking... they can build aircraft that can take off and operate in even the worst sorts of weather. No, they can't. Most thunderstorms will do some SERIOUS damage to most airplanes. Hail will absolutely fuck up an airplane. If the turbulence is strong engouh, you can have a bad day. Only a fool underestimates the weather. Why can't they build a lift system that can launch even when it is a little overcast, with the occasional gusty of wind?
If you had a billion dollar rocket, would you not take every possible precaution to ensure that you don't waste your billion dollars (and countless man-hours)? I don't need them to launch a vehicle with eleventy-bazillion gallons of Explodium Q-19 fuel through a lightning storm to be proud of NASA, but EXPLODES BECAUSE SOME FOAM HIT THE SIDE seems sorta weak.
I understand your frustration, but most of the lessons you're questioning are written in blood. |
|
Quoted:
I'm no engineer... but it seems like they make rockets out of snowflakes, soap bubbles, cotton candy, and stacks of Jenga blocks. What the fuck? I know that weight is a prime concern, but is it that hard to make a system that is a little more robust than "unable to launch if a shadow of a cloud falls upon it, lest it explode with the fury of a thousand suns"? Yeah, I can tell you're not an engineer or engineering support. Sure, NASA is risk averse for some damn reason, but that's not why you don't shoot a test rocket into bad weather. It's because it is a TEST. And to get good test data and to not waste your test article you try to eliminate as many variables as possible. It's not like the rocket will go bad sitting there for another day or whatever. |
|
Quoted:
I'm no engineer... obviously. Have you written your congressman demanding that they increase NASA's funding so that they can afford to make billion dollar mistakes whenever they're in a hurry and don't want to wait for the weather to clear? Didn't think so. |
|
The answer is obvious to the most casual observer....
The legion of scientists and engineers who have worked on these programs are completely inept and have no clue about what they are doing. Duh! I think your tinfoil needs to be wrapped a little tighter. 
ETA - I would like to see more non-government efforts in this area. It has been 40 years since man went to the moon, and less computing power than the average desktop was used (we can thank the space program for integrated circuits, BTW). There has GOT to be a whole universe filled with ways to make a shit-ton of money out there. |
|
Quoted:
But then, I know dick about engineering, so this rant is worth every dime you paid for it. I'm not an engineer or a rocket scientist...but it seems to me that making sensitive scientific equipment and then producing a vehicle which you can use to fling it into the far reaches of space where it will remain useful for research and discovery is pretty fucking hard. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I'm no engineer... [Spock] That much is obvious [/Spock] 0/10 for failing to understand anything about payloads, test procedures, or safety. Do you feel NASA has become so risk averse, they are somewhat crippled? Or perhaps the public has, and NASA must react to that? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Ask the Challenger crew how weather might affect a launch.   It was CAVU that day. Weather had nothing to do with the Challenger mishap. NASA disagrees with you: http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch5.htm Temperture was a contributing cause to the accident (temperture is a part of the weather). |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ask the Challenger crew how weather might affect a launch.
It was CAVU that day. Weather had nothing to do with the Challenger mishap. NASA disagrees with you: http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch5.htm Temperture was a contributing cause to the accident (temperture is a part of the weather). Not to mention, if it hadn't been a clear day for the cameras, we might never had known what happened. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm no engineer... [Spock] That much is obvious [/Spock] 0/10 for failing to understand anything about payloads, test procedures, or safety. Do you feel NASA has become so risk averse, they are somewhat crippled? Or perhaps the public has, and NASA must react to that? NASA has become very risk adverse, and yes part of that has to do with public reaction. IMHO the public see 'Star Trek' and thinks space flight should be like that - safe with the only dangers coming from the "alien bad guy of the week". However, there are things you try not do to when conducting test flights, particularly early test flights. This isn't a Trident where we need data on how the missle/RBs react to clouds, it's supposed to be a manned platform. |
|
Quoted:
It was freezing temps the night before that eff'ed up the solid booster o rings. And MT engineers knew there was a risk of failure in that case. So yes it was the weather. Red Contradicts Blue. Challenger never should have been launched. No one mistake usually leads to a catastrophic failure, it's the COMBINATION of either mistakes or non-ideal circumstances, the NASA guys are taking as many risk elements out of the plan as they can. |
|
The Enterprise (Star Trek) has things like "structural integrity reinforcement fields", "shields", and a "navigational deflector" which help to protect it from the hazards of space flight, not to mention a duranium hull.
We don't presently have those technologies, so our real spacecraft are - unfortunately - not as durable. One phaser short or quantum torpedo hit would destroy any of our present spacecraft. A meteor could do massive damage to them. We have real-world materials to work with. We are still learning. What we are learning is valuable, and will help us progress to the day when some of those technologies will be real, and our spacecraft will be just as durable as their movie counterparts are in the CGI and matte painting environments in which they exist. |
|
Once again, GD gets me backwards.
I'm not suggesting that we should throw caution to the wind and launch whenever Punxatawny Phil comes out of his hole, and make our rockets out of firecrackers and six sided dice. I am expressing a non-engineer's/layman's frustration and asking why our systems are not more robust than they are. Some of you know why that is the case - I want those of you to explain it to me, so I understand it. Did we go the wrong direction with Huge/Delicate/Reusable/Expensive Shuttle, when maybe we should have gone Chunky/Simple/Cheap/Big Dumb Rocket? 
Some of you accuse me of not having a clue - I want those of you to have this purple Captain Obvious Cape. Huzzah! That's why I'm asking! 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ask the Challenger crew how weather might affect a launch.
It was CAVU that day. Weather had nothing to do with the Challenger mishap. NASA disagrees with you: http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch5.htm Temperture was a contributing cause to the accident (temperture is a part of the weather). I was thinking "at the time of launch." You're absolutely right, though. But modern airplanes can fly in the cold, right?!? 
|
|
As far as launch vehicles go, it is all about weight. If we could build them out of steel & reinforced concrete, they'd be a lot more durable, but they'd never leave the ground.
And if you want to talk about colossal wastes of money and the durability of aircraft, take a look at the most expensive aircraft ever built, about $2billion per copy IIRC...it can't fly in the RAIN! Hell, it can't even sit in the rain. Also requires an air conditioned hangar so it can't be forward deployed, yet it is the wet dream sweetheart of bombers for some reason. $2 billion and you couldn't get the protection package with it? WTF? (B2 of course) |
|
Quoted: Once again, GD gets me backwards. I'm not suggesting that we should throw caution to the wind and launch whenever Punxatawny Phil comes out of his hole, and make our rockets out of firecrackers and six sided dice. I am expressing a non-engineer's/layman's frustration and asking why our systems are not more robust than they are. Some of you know why that is the case - I want those of you to explain it to me, so I understand it. Did we go the wrong direction with Huge/Delicate/Reusable/Expensive Shuttle, when maybe we should have gone Chunky/Simple/Cheap/Big Dumb Rocket? Some of you accuse me of not having a clue - I want those of you to have this purple Captain Obvious Cape. Huzzah! That's why I'm asking! Yes. I think most people agree the shuttle was a bad idea/didn't work out as planned. It's a pretty good platform but the cost was a lot more than we planned for. The idea of the shuttle was to have a reusable vehicle to cut costs. It ended up being very expensive. We could have gotten a lot more science done for the same money with a platform like what we are transiting to. |
