The Shuttle program under the microscope
I’m not going to recap this article, except to quote one thing, and say that it’s really good, and that if you’re a space/NASA fan, it’s well worth your time to read.
Future archaeologists trying to understand what the Shuttle was for are going to have a mess on their hands. Why was such a powerful rocket used only to reach very low orbits, where air resistance and debris would limit the useful lifetime of a satellite to a few years? Why was there both a big cargo bay and a big crew compartment? What kind of missions would require people to assist in deploying a large payload? Why was the Shuttle intentionally crippled so that it could not land on autopilot? 1 Why go through all the trouble to give the Shuttle large wings if it has no jet engines and the glide characteristics of a brick? Why build such complex, adjustable main engines and then rely on the equivalent of two giant firecrackers to provide most of the takeoff thrust? Why use a glass thermal protection system, rather than a low-tech ablative shield? And having chosen such a fragile method of heat protection, why on earth mount the orbiter on the side of the rocket, where things will fall on it during launch?
It’s cynical, funny, educational, and engaging. In short, it’s well worth reading. I learned a great deal from it, and was highly entertained. Lest you think that it’s merely one person’s opinion, NASA chief Michael Griffin agrees. Check it out.
1 Comment »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
| TrackBack URI
You can also bookmark
this on del.icio.us or check the cosmos
[...] Russia has turned to space tourism in recent years to finance their largely-broke space program. The first civilian in space was Californian Dennis Tito, and Mark Shuttleworth of South Africa was second. Currently the United States is dependent on the Soyuz program because of the problems with the Shuttle program. But now there are legal issues to contend with because of a law passed in 2000 prohibiting space-station-related payments to Russia because they helped the Iranians build a nuclear power plant. In theory, this could mean no more continuous American presence on the ISS, though this seems unlikely. [...]
Pingback by polyscience.org » Soyuz hangups and space tourists — October 14, 2005 @ 5:36 pm