Posted on 03/10/2021 10:11:57 AM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
100% correct.
Same here.
How are we going to learn how to do what you propose without keeping humans in space?
The previously used asbestos sealant grease would have sealed the Challenger’s engine O-rings in spite of the cold launch temperature. However, NASA’s chiefs outlawed the grease because of asbestos. This embarrassment and the loss of human life is directly attributable to those people.
You are correct.
*it was foam.*
You would be referring to the shuttle Columbia crash in 2003. It also was caused by a top-down politically correct decision to replace the superior CFC-blown polyurethane under-belly foam with the weaker water-blown polyurethane foam on the Columbia.
CFC bad.
On the morning of the explosion there were reports the frame attaching the shuttle to the fuel tank was cracked. Watch video of the explosion and you will see the fire start at that joint, not the booster. It can clearly be seen in the Ronald Reagan video on the disaster.
AND watch multiple videos of the explosion aftermath, there is NO evidence of an O-ring burn through, both boosters are flying approximately the same. There are videos online which show the erratic flight of a rocket with a leak. Morton-Thiokal took one for the team so NASA didn’t shoulder the blame.
Remember the C5A? The plane. Same size as a 747 which could have been converted. The 747 idea was treated like Hydroxychloroquine and big pharma got in the way. Same thing. Whistleblower ended up managing bowling alleys at AF bases in Thailand.
Why would anyone have to go into space? Issac Newton and Albert Einstein were never in space. The most important thing we have learned from humans in space is how hard it is on humans to be in space. We need basic breakthroughs in physics if we want to explore the universe in person. We should putting more money in that and less in publicity stunts for middle school science classes. By we I mean the government, of course. If Elon Musk wants to bankroll a trip, then God bless him. I hope they make it and don’t come back invalids.
And to add to the many elements of bad design:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/flyout/railroad.html
“Getting the 12-foot-wide, 150-ton segments to the launch site is only possible by rail.”
Now why is that? Couldn’t they have taken them on a barge? (And if they did, would they have needed to make the rocket in a whole series of segments each as long as a railcar? Has there ever been another rocket that travelled on rail cars in segments?)
Nope, because instead of giving the contract to a company anywhere on the coast or a navigable river, they gave it to Morton Thiokol in one of the 16 US states that are entirely landlocked Utah. Now what else is in Utah? Orrin Hatch, the powerful senator who spent a good bit of his career shilling for that company.
I read an article years ago saying that the space shuttle was the most skillfully designed project in American history. It managed to require contracts and jobs in every state that hosted a key deciding congressman or senator.
There has only been 1 MISSION that required all 7 astronauts— 6hw time they repaired the Hubble Telescope.
the entire program was a waste of money
We coulda had 20 one and two-man shuttles operating under the Lifting Body Reentry Vehicle program at 1/5th the cost.
Correct. It’s no coincidence that the current crop of launch vehicles have gone back to the old configuration.
I can't help but wonder how differently history might have unfolded had McDonald's warnings been heeded and that mission had been cancelled or delayed.
Richard Feynman provided the killing blow to NASA over this.
He put one of the gaskets in his ice water glass, pulled it out, and then showed how brittle it was by breaking it apart.
There's nothing that can be done in space that can't be done cheaper, faster and easier right here on Earth.
As far as exploration, unmanned probes are showing that they work just fine.
Now why is that? Couldn’t they have taken them on a barge? (And if they did, would they have needed to make the rocket in a whole series of segments each as long as a railcar? Has there ever been another rocket that travelled on rail cars in segments?)
Nope, because instead of giving the contract to a company anywhere on the coast or a navigable river, they gave it to Morton Thiokol in one of the 16 US states that are entirely landlocked Utah. Now what else is in Utah? Orrin Hatch, the powerful senator who spent a good bit of his career shilling for that company.
—
Always wondered why the rocket was segmented. Now I know! It was political.
Maybe we do....
It's widely accepted now that the Challenger astronauts survived the explosion and died when the orbiter impacted the ocean. They were alive for the entire fall.
Columbia was compromised by impact with a chunk (or chunks) of failed external tank insulating foam. The foam contained absorbed water that increased the mass of the foam fragment(s). I remember analyzing the high-frame rate video that was released afterwards and concluding the foam pieces were accelerated to roughly 500 MPH before striking the wing. The failure can be pinned on a new foam recipe replacing the original to meet a "green" objective. The new foam absorbed more water and had inferior adhesion to the tank. So we can blame the disaster on "green practices"...
The proximate cause for Challenger disaster was the resiliency of an inter-segment gasket on the booster. The gasket was too cold at ignition and did not conform to the seal between the segments, resulting in a rapidly eroding collimated blow-by from the solid combustion between segments. It was pointed at the base of the external tank and eventually burned through it "like a blowtorch". NASA had acquired evidence of this potential fault in previous missions but with a very self-serving and faulty risk analysis the engineering management dismissed it from concern. The concern was raised again immediately prior to the launch and dismissed with a "this one simple management trick" commonly used to keep projects on schedule despite progress-blocking issues, namely treating the concerns of the qualified engineers as anecdotally inferior to the risk of a short-term schedule lapse affecting customer relations...
I really liked Feynman's report on his conduct of the investigation, which was a significant work prior to the inspired theatrical performance he put on at the public hearing to illustrate his findings. He wrote about it in his autobiography. It is likely General Kutyna knew of or intuited the cause (he had a significant amount of experience with ICBMs and managing technical risk), but he cunningly utilized Feynman to provide an objective assessment. The Rogers Commission report was otherwise destined to be a whitewash of Nasa and industry management but for the inspired deviltry of Kutyna and Feynman....
“and an intrinsically flawed design”
The original concept had 2 reusable vehicles, a booster with the orbiter riding on top, much like the final transport configuration with the 747. It was meant to take off and return to an airport. The final kluge config was a budget decision. IMHO, the biggest lesson learned from the shuttle was how dumb it is to make a space ship that looks like an airplane. What SpaceX is doing is so much better. Just look at what they are doing with this new Starship. They are going to be landing all stages soon, not just the first stage. It is just remarkable out of the box thinking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.