Shuttle Surface More Vulnerable Than Suspected

Ant writes "The space shuttle's skin is turning out to be even more fragile than NASA engineers thought, its scientists and engineers say. Impact tests and analysis performed as part of the return-to-flight effort show that pieces of insulating foam that weigh less than half an ounce can cause small cracks and damage to the surface coating on the heat-resistant panels on the leading edge of the wing, agency officials said in interviews this week."

Comments

Another reason it should be scrapped.

[Anonymous Coward]

Materials science, airframe design, computational testing and avionics have come a very long way since the shuttles were first conceived, designed and flown (the shuttle program was started in 1972, and it first flew in 1981). And then it was designed by commitee - it had so many goals that it didn't hit any of them. If I remember correctly: NASA wanted it to carry cargo to space stations (practical and forward-thinking), the government wanted it to carry people (manned space travel is glamorous), the military wanted it to be self-sustained and able to launch military payloads (what else?) with no external help on top-secret missions - which also means able to launch payloads to geosyncronous orbits, etc.

And it all adds up to something that's more of a compromise than a solution. Even when it was new, the shuttle wasn't very good at anything. It was too heavy, too complicated and had capabilities that were too limited.

It's the sort of complications cause by simply maintaining the shuttle (such as the tiles) that make a strong case for simply scrapping the existing shuttle. The efforts, energy and money should be spent on a replacement - and a sane replacement.

For example, modern metal alloys and fabrication techniques can construct spacecraft hulls that are light, strong, and can directly withstand the heat of re-entry. No ceramic tiles are needed - it's inefficient to keep fixing them when they should be replaced and the shuttles retired to a museum

(Or the slightly mad Star Trek solution: re-fit them, then send them up as salvage barges for an orbital dockyard, never to re-enter the atmosphere again).

Public Choice raises its ugly head.

[Bob_Robertson]

This is a kluge, made by the lowest bidder that would build facilities in favored politicians districts, hamstrung by bureaucrats and inane regulation at every turn. The design was loaded with "everything for everyone" until it was a miracle that if flew at all.

I admire the individual scientists and engineers that could make progress in this environment. No wonder they burn out at such a rate.

Scrap the entire system, sell off NASA to the highest bidders, and have done with it. Putting more lives at risk on those craft is pointless. Any private effort wouldn't be able to afford the liability insurance for craft like those, aren't you glad it's your tax money being spent to kill people instead?

If there is overwhelming support for such efforts, there is no need for taxes to taken at gun point to fund them. If the programs do not have such public support, there is no mandate for government to be doing it in the first place.

Bob-