Skip to main content

View Diary: Space Spells Jobs - Part III. Poll Results. (114 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You've been following the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bill White, NellaSelim

    "no way no how" orbital ET conversation over at NSF, right?

    Apparently it can't happen without a redesign of the insulating foam.

    •  Clongton said he wouldn't change it now (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NellaSelim, Vladislaw, BeDirect

      I agree with that. Fly first.

      But if ESPN offered enough money after they started flying, they "could" change the insulation.

      What needs to change (IMHO) is the paradigm that NASA equals human spaceflight and human spaceflight equals NASA. I share an abhorrence at the idea of NASA flight suits becoming logo encrusted.

      However, facilitating other people flying logo encrusted space suits and playing Ender's Game in LEO and having zero-gee honeymoons increases flight rates which will lower the cost of sending NASA scientists in pristine white spacesuits anywhere they want to go.

      "Seeing our planet as a whole, enables one to see our planet as a whole" - Tad Daley

      by Bill White on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 06:56:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There's no incentive (0+ / 0-)

        for NASA to make design changes for an outside entity, no matter what the price right? I don't think it will happen with a J-120 Stage.

        That said, maybe someone will pay LM to make the mods and fly it themselves ;-)

    •  I'm no engineer (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bill White

      but one thinks that redesigning the insulating foam would be substantially more feasible than designing something from scratch.

      If God hadn't wanted us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.

      by HamillianActor on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 06:58:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  II'd think that too (0+ / 0-)

        But if so, why didn't we do it for shuttle?  replacing the RCC with metallic TPS and the foam with aerogel would seem like a good way to fix it without designing a whole new launch vehicle.

        It seems to me that NASA doesn't always do things that 'make sense'.  :-)

      •  Not necessarily and I have said this before... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        the ET was designed to be a lightweight fuel tank and not a primary stage in launch.  The dimensions are major factors in its design and I am not just talking about the width and length of ET.  It also involves the the thickness of sheeting or plating, rivets, support beams, material tensile strength, shear, et al.  The ET may look simple but it is actually is fairly complex piece of engineering and to redesign it for primary staging may not be technically workable or economically feasible.  An independent review would be necessary.  The problem with that is finding technically competent engineers who have no bias one way or the other.

        •  We very well might need (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          to design a from scratch replacement of the ET, but after Skylab, why that concept was explored and expanded upon is criminal.

          Maybe it is technically infeasible; like I said, I'm not engineer. But people who have said, "It can't be done." at NASA since Apollo don't have a lot of credibility with me.

          If God hadn't wanted us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.

          by HamillianActor on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 09:39:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site