Suck it up NASA

JonClarke · Jan 24, 2005

Poor Mike Adams is always forgotten. He deserves better http://area51specialprojects.com/adams_x-15_crash.html Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

vogon13 · Jan 24, 2005

X-15 vehicle #3, piloted by Major Michael J. Adams , was lost November 15, 1967. Flight acheived 266,000 ft. altitude and 3570 mph. Mission objectives included micrometeorite collection, solar spectrum measurment, bow shock investigation, test of insulation material for Saturn 5 program and a guidance test. Information courtesy of Aerofax Datagraph 2, North American X-15/X-X-15a-2. I note here that scientific nature of flight parallels space shuttle Columbia final flight. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

vogon13 · Jan 24, 2005

I believe Scott Crossfield was in cockpit 6/17/1960 when X-15 exploded due to engine malfunction during ground test. Cockpit (and Crossfield) survived explosion. Crossfield wanted credit for 50 milliseconds of flight time for riding out explosion. Request not granted. These test pilots are a breed all their own. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

drwayne · Jan 24, 2005

He later admitted by the way that the shock of the explosion messed his vision up a bit. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

lunatic133 · Jan 24, 2005

>A ship in harbor is safe-but that is not what ships are for.< That was my senior quote in the high school year book! I agree with blacknebula -- to sacrifice the hubble for the sake of manned exploration is worth it, because if humans cannot travel into space, then what use is knowlege fo it? I believe that working towards human colonization is a better way to spend the tax payers' money than with robotic exploration. With human colonization there is a chance of great returns, in terms of the technological development and the promise of a new frontier and a new home for humanity. but with robotic exploration, we get some pretty pictures, and maybe some lucky professor out there gets to write a thesis. But what good does it do for humans as a whole? How does it help anyone? Everyone says human spaceflight is a waste of money but those same people always seem to look the other way in regards to robotic exploration, when the possibility of returns that help THEM are even less than with humans. It makes no sense. I agree that robots need to work alongside humans in exploring the cosmos, but not exclusively! On the other hand there IS the risk factor. NASA is afraid of everything it seems. How can we ever expect to return to the moon if we can't go to hubble. Furthermore the decision to cancel the hubble mission has polarized the space community worse than it has ever been polarized before. Many proponents of Hubble blame manned spaceflight for taking away the last mission, and take out their rage on programs like MtM. Astronomy buffs who might have supported manned spaceflight before are suddenly vehemently against it. My take is that Hubble should be saved for the SAKE of manned spaceflight, not for the sake of destroying it.

vogon13 · Jan 24, 2005

And more forgotten still, John G. Bjornstad and Forrest G. Cole. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

5stone10 · Jan 24, 2005

I believe that working towards human colonization is a better way to spend the tax payers' money than with robotic exploration. With human colonization there is a chance of great returns, in terms of the technological development and the promise of a new frontier and a new home for humanity. but with robotic exploration, we get some pretty pictures, and maybe some lucky professor out there gets to write a thesis. But what good does it do for humans as a whole? But you just laid out the argument - ROI. Huygens cost about $3bil.

Astrosag · Jan 25, 2005

"On the other hand there IS the risk factor. NASA is afraid of everything it seems. How can we ever expect to return to the moon if we can't go to hubble. " Actually, I believe that NASA is MORE afraid about the reprecussions from losing people than losing astronauts in general. I mean, I'm not trying to picture them as callous people- losing friends is a great deal. But as whole, as an agency, I think its afraid about the backlash from us- the public and in turn, the government. I don't see how so many people can put the blame just on NASA. There's good reason why it doesn't want to take unecessary risk. Once (and hopefully it will) faith is regained in our space program, NASA will take more galant, brave steps. And with that said, no matter how "polarized" the space community is, the space community will always be there, the space enthusiasts, the researchers- will all always be there b/c NASA is our only tool (thus far). BUT the public support and government suppost won't always be there. So its understandable why NASA would give the cold shoulder to part, if not the whole, space community to avert a risk of losing another shuttle and public faith and support with it. I'm not saying going to Hubble is much more difficult (space_guy already pointed out that it isn't- despite the lack of evidence- but I trust the man). But sending the shuttle up even for a miniscule task obviously increases the risk of destruction or loss of life. I mean the way we strongly feel about this situation, I am positive that many many people at NASA feel this way too. What I'm saying is that its not as simple as a statement- NASA is afraid- it never is that simple.

JonClarke · Jan 25, 2005

Indeed. But if we are going to include non-astronauts killed, there would be hundreds, probably thousands. More problematic is John McKay. He was severely injured after an X-15 crash and died prematurely of its effects. As he was no longer a test pilot he is not normally considered amongst the fallen. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Jan 25, 2005

As a matter of fact Huygens cost about 460 million. It is Casinni as a whole that cost 3.4 billion. For the record of those who think that ESA got a free lunch, ESA and Italy contributed almost 25% of the total cost. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

strandedonearth · Jan 25, 2005

How much of the $3.4 billion price tag is for the cost of the hardware that sat on the pad, and how much is "mission costs" for keeping tabs on the spacecraft during cruise and analyzing the data once they reached their objectives? I would assume that the 460 million (dollars or euros?) is the hardware cost for Huygens, not including the cost of operating it after launch.

JonClarke · Jan 25, 2005

Well, according to this article http://community.spacecast.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001176;p= Cassini/Hygens overall program cost 3.4 billion. Of this, Huygens cost 422 million out of a total ESA contribution of 600 million. The Italian space agency also contributed $160 million. The Titan IV launch cost 450 million. So, total European contribution = 760 million = 22% The Us contribution to the orbiter was 1.3 billion, so 1.3 billion + 760 million + 450 million = 2.51 billion. These means that overating costs are 890 million. Sounds a lot but it will be spread of about 30 years (design and construction, cruise to Saturn, Saturn mission and extensions, 30 million a year sounds about right for a mission of this scale. Jon Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

cdr6 · Jan 26, 2005

I've been rumaging around my old piles of x-15 stuff but can't find anything on the accident. Of course things like that were kept quiet back then I guess, out of respect more than for a cover up. So I turned to the "net" and found something that disturbed me. There is a web site that offers pieces of the debries from the crash for sale, abet small ones that were deemed not worth recovery for the investigation. The price was set at 300 bucks, and even though the parts are presented nicely, something ugly (ghoulish) about the whole concept struck me. I wonder if this is proper, and what if the pieces were from the Columbia or Challenger, or Titanic for that matter? I wonder, at what point does an artifact become an artifact?

vogon13 · Jan 26, 2005

I felt it significant that they perished on board an American spacecraft, regardless of their non-astronaut status. Circumstances of accident (communications breakdown, lack of safety checks, not following procedures) some feel, were to be echoed during Callenger and Columbia accidents. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

vogon13 · Jan 26, 2005

Old crash sites of all types are receiving much more attention these days. Had not considered sale of grisly artifacts as cause. Disturbing (if not surprising) trend. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

Astrosag · Jan 26, 2005

and back to the original topic...

averygoodspirit · Jan 26, 2005

What’s NASA doing with the 600 million per Shuttle launch they are saving? Why do we have to use fragile heat tiles? Why don’t we just spray the bottom of the shuttle with a rhino lining like we do the bed of our pick up trucks? …Maybe not that exact product, but a flexible, one piece, heat shield. There has to be a better, more durable product that can do the job. During a tour I took at NASA I saw a cross section of the insulation that is on the main fuel tank. I was amazed at how many layers there were to it. The tour guide didn’t know anything. Why does the insulation have to be so complex? Why not keep it as simple as possible in order to accomplish the same objective? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

drwayne · Jan 26, 2005

"There has to be a better, more durable product that can do the job." Yup, unobtanium would do nicely. Seriously though, there are better, more durable products that will do the job, unfortunately there is another aspect to the trade space. Weight. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

mattblack · Jan 26, 2005

Spraying or attaching a "rhino" like coating is a good idea. Trouble is, it's not that easy and has been a Holy Grail of thermal protection engineers for over 30 years. The Shuttle's tiles although fragile have worked very well all these years. And nobody has seriously invented a viable alternative just yet. Too much weight, I guess. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

vogon13 · Jan 26, 2005

Spaceship One, Mach 3. Space shuttle, Mach 25. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

drwayne · Jan 26, 2005

<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Don't forget, Spaceship One is *way* sub-orbital - the mission is completely different. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

najab · Jan 26, 2005

Also remember that the Shuttle does Mach 25 at the top, SS1 does Mach 3 at the bottom. By the time it's gotten to altitude, it's doing no more than a few miles per hour.

drwayne · Jan 26, 2005

It is interesting, I run into people from time to time assuming things are orbital - like the ASAT of years ago - simply because they reach high altitude. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

averygoodspirit · Jan 27, 2005

Shuttle_guy: Obviously what you saw was not the "fuel tank" insulation since that insulation is only foam. That’s what I thought when the tour guy was showing the cross section to people on the tour. I even mentioned to him that what he was showing us could not be the entire cross section of the ET because it didn’t even include the tank itself. It looked like three different colors and layers of foam insulation. The tour guy became a little testy and said, “Yes. This is the entire cross section of the External tank.” I said, “It can’t be.” He said, “Well it is, and this is what they told us to say.” The cross section was about 11/2 inches in thickness. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

averygoodspirit · Jan 27, 2005

I took this tour about 25 years ago. When I was on the cape, I remember driving down this rutted out, narrow dirt road located to the northwest of the launch pad. I drove around a barricade and drove about a hundred yards further and up to the top of a hill. When I reached the top, I looked down and saw the shuttle on the launch pad. It was only about a mile away. I was only able to marvel at the sight for about thirty seconds before the security guards arrived. They gave me a very stern lecture about being where I wasn’t suppose to be and then escorted me out of the area. I guess one moral to this story is… Twenty five years is a long time to be using a machine that is launched into LEO, reenters the earth’s atmosphere and then lands on its own. We do need a whole new program and we need it now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Suck it up NASA

JonClarke

Guest

vogon13

Guest

vogon13

Guest

drwayne

Guest

lunatic133

Guest

vogon13

Guest

5stone10

Guest

Astrosag

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

strandedonearth

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

cdr6

Guest

vogon13

Guest

vogon13

Guest

Astrosag

Guest

averygoodspirit

Guest

drwayne

Guest

mattblack

Guest

vogon13

Guest

drwayne

Guest

najab

Guest

drwayne

Guest

averygoodspirit

Guest

averygoodspirit

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page