Comments on: Columbia

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 07:03:06 +0000

The upper atmosphere, beginning as low as the 30 to 45K feet I flew in, was not exactly a spring day: oxygen masks mandatory above 40K and extremes of cold. The acceleration and vibration are other know factors. Those O-rings were on the edge of criminal. The whole design, with the foam on the external tank was stupid. We have better materials and designs.

There needs to be unity of command and control with anything that complicated, but everyone wants a piece of the action, and it’s safer politically to involve as many as possible in the process.

By: Kryten42

Kryten42 — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 06:36:55 +0000

Cutting corners of course. 🙂 Launch systems don’t need to survive in space. LOL

*sigh* Everything is built to as small a budget as possible. I have thought in the past that the US Navy should be in charge of NASA Engineering, and NASA should be in charge of timetables only. The Navy’s record for designing survivable systems in hostile environments is enviable. Eg. The boomers (SSBN’s). The only time the Navy gets it wrong is when Politicians get involved. 🙂

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 04:02:06 +0000

I wasn’t being clear. If you are designing a craft for the extremes of space, why in hell include materials that become useless at the freezing point of water? Why use adhesives and materials that can stand the stress of rocket acceleration? Why not test this stuff?

It’s as if they ran a few computer simulations and said it ought to work. Why take a chance? They don’t fix things, they patch them.

By: Kryten42

Kryten42 — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 01:28:26 +0000

It’s not space that’s the problem usually. It’s the faulty launch systems. Nobody else to blame for that.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 22:14:56 +0000

Winter is hard on space craft, which is odd when you think of the conditions of space.

By: mapaghimagsik

mapaghimagsik — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 21:23:51 +0000

So easy to forget. Thanks for the reminder.