Slashdot Mirror
Bad Testing Doomed NASA's Hypersonic X-43A
RobertB-DC writes "Space.com got hold of NASA's yet-to-be-released report on the June 2001 failure of the air-breathing X-43A hypersonic research vehicle, and it doesn't look good for 'Faster, Better, Cheaper'. The report refuses to single out any one contributing factor, but it cites ground testing 'inaccuracies' and 'misinterpretation' of wind tunnel data -- in particular, failure to retest the vehicle after additional heat protection was added. As noted in the original Slashdot article, the craft went out of control when the fins broke off just seconds into flight."
You know, stuff like this really inspires me. I'm in the middle of reading Kings of the High Frontier, which was first published in the mid-nineties. A major plot point is a wealthy industrialist offering a half-billion dollar prize similar to the X-Prize. Even a few years ago, I never thought we'd be seeing so many groups trying for their own cheap launch. It should have been done years ago.
Some people complain that the X-Prize doesn't really get anywhere---that tossing yourself a hundred kilometers above sea level is a far cry from low earth orbit. This is true. Maybe the X-Prize will be the first in a series of cash prizes to spur even more invention. First single-stage to orbit, first real space station, first craft assembled in space... I don't know what the next milestones will be, but we'll get there faster if there's cash money incentive.
Oh, and would wetsuits work as space suits? There's no way the heat would really bleed off, and if you could lead-line them for heat shielding...
The quote from KOTHF is "Space suits for NASA cost a million bucks a shot and are about as comfortable as wearing pork barrels. I found this research report from the nineteen-sixties by a team that ought to have won the contract bid, except that their suits only cost a thousand dollars each and could be done by any seamstress. NASA probably figured that would have looked cheap, so for three decades astronauts have been lugging around thirty layers of cloth and a refrigerator when they could have been dressed in Spandex tights." [...] "The difference between down here and up there is only one measly atmosphere of pressure. Our skin is strong enough to withstand that gradient. It has quite a bit of tensile strength. The only problem is that it stretches too well. That means we swell up, which drops the pressure in our bloodstream, so our blood outgasses and vapor-locks our hearts. With just this second skin to keep our body volume constant, we don't expand. So we don't boil." (From ch. 11.)
Can anyone with a background in anything relating to that confirm or deny?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Why is it that nasa has the philosophy of faster better cheaper? Although it has had some success the philosophy leads to more failure. Its obvious that the public seems to want more space based research, trips to mars, etc. So why does nasa feel that it needs to drop a project at any hint of failure?
-=You might be a geek if your computer is worth more than your car=-
I personally don't see this governmental fiddling with space lasting much longer, seeing how commercial interests and private (albeit wealthy) citizens are starting to push the cold, dark envelope of space travel. If I could make an outlandish prediction, I'd guess that by 2020, we'll have a ship or two with no real flag-bearing duties on the Moon. I personally hope we find a complete replacement for manned vehicles altogether, but exploration has demands for the flexible, so humans will probably still be risked as a result.
Remember, you don't fly in a "Wright" airplane, it's a Boeing... let commercial interests take over where purist experimentation leaves off.
Windows XP SP2 told me to install third-party software that prevents viruses and protects stability... I chose Ubuntu
NASA has some damn smart people working there. NASA does really nice basic research. NASA sucks ass at applying it.
Look at the various inventions that fell out of the space program as little extras. Look at all the technology that was invented. That's what NASA does well.
Now look at the Shuttle, which didn't meet a single one of its design parameters---it's technically not even reusable, it's salvageable. Look at the criminally high cost of launching mass into LEO. Look at NASA's inability to really deliver on the applied end of things. That's what NASA can't do.
I suggest Kings of the High Frontier as required reading for anyone interested in learning how NASA has failed to deliver on its promise of space access due to its fetishization of research-heavy boondoggles. The book is fiction, but extensively researched. (The discussion on unpressurized spacesuits fell out of an off-the-cuff reference the author made.)
Leave it to the X-Prize competitors, and their successors. The Space Shuttle is at the very limit of complexity that's possible to construct, which is why NASA has been unable to replace it. (Did you know there are literally hundreds of "Criticality One" components in the shuttle, the failure of any one of which could cause the shuttle's destruction?)
Okay, this seems like a rant about the Shuttle. But it's really about NASA, and the way in which they do things. It's not an indictment against the people who work there; the scientists and engineers of NASA are without equal. Their efforts are being squandered. The future does not belong to NASA, and it hasn't since they cancelled Apollo.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Agree completely. But look at what happened in the 60's - they had the President in public state "We will put a man on the moon by the end of this decade". They had a *clearly* defined goal to work towards, and were resourced to do it.
What are they working on now? Do they have such a strong, defined, focused goal? Such strong executive leadership? No wonder they are floundering.
Read reviews of shopping cart software
Captain Loser, you have to remember that NASA is a bureaucratic organization. The purpose of a bureaucratic organization is to extract money from the taxpayers to hire more bureaucrats... And they know that the Shuttle should be replaced by something that does not require an army to operate, but they'd be out of a job.
SysKoll, do you actually know any NASA bureaucrats? Well, my father is one of them. And ever since the Columbia accident he's been working 70-hour workweeks (with no overtime pay, I think). And every day he talks to me about all the discussions at work he's having about how to phase out the shuttle. And all of the other "bureaucrats" he works with are hard-working, honest folks who are neither conspirators nor thieves of taxpayer money.
I'm sorry if this seems a little harsh, but I am really FED UP with people who bash NASA just to bash NASA.
P.S. In response to your "Each time the crazy engineers rock the boat and create a potential cheaper competitor for the Shuttle, it magically gets killed" I would point out that none of NASA's X-vehicles were competitors for the shuttle. They were technology demonstrators. I agree that NASA mismanaged them, but if they had flown, we would be no closer to a shuttle replacement.
P.P.S. An by the way, there is hope for the future of private space flight, which I think is our only hope for CATS. It's called the X-Prize (www.xprize.org); I think you would enjoy learning about it.