Slashdot Mirror
Crack Found in Shuttle Tank
hpulley writes "The shuttle's new fuel tank, supposedly redesigned to be safer, has a crack in it. Pictures were sent to the manufacturer who decided that it is too small to be worrisome. Hmm, what caused the Columbia disaster, pieces of foam?
Meanwhile, there will be a second shuttle on standby, just in case the first one has problems after being hit by foam, etc. If the first shuttle has a design flaw, what's to say the second one isn't afflicted by the same problem? Won't there be a good chance of them stranding the rescue crew in addition to the original crew? If an aircraft crashes and the redesign to fix it crashes, would you send another of the same type to rescue it? Of course not! The ISS is going to be a smelly, scary place with the regular complement and two shuttle crews onboard and no way home but a Russian Soyuz capsule that isn't slated to launch again until September and has seats for just three..."
Guess you don't ever talk on a landline then because the technology in them hasn't changed since Alexander Graham Bell.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
AC comments get piped to
It's no use guys, this is never going to get off the ground.
Hey! Why don't we strap a couple of fireworks on the side!
Incidentally, every space launch uses solid rocket fuel. It is simultaneously the most dangerous (by far the highest energy density, while being incapable of being "shut off" once lit), and only way to achieve the speeds and altitude necessary for orbit. The simple fact is that no amount of liquid fuel is enough to get a craft into orbit, because it needs to have enough energy to lift the heavy fuel itself, as well, and to do so requires more fuel, which adds weight, which requires more fuel... etc. The only way to overcome this limitation is by using solid fuel. And that's why all rockets do.
The use of solid rocket fuel was not some haphazard, risky strategy unique to the shuttle program. The laws of math and physics dictate that it is the only way to do it.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
The Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs used only liquid fuel.
Yes, and none of those programs went to orbit. Read my post again:
"[Solid rocket fuel is the] only way to achieve the speeds and altitude necessary for orbit."
The programs you cited never attained orbit. They explored other planets/moons, and thus had different (lesser) thurst requirements.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Wow, you ARE a troll, aren't you? But I'll bite. As trolls like you don't bother looking things up, I'll give you the names of these (what you clueslessly call 'non-identified') reports:
"Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident" aka 'Rogers Commission Report' and
"The CAIB Report"
Clearly you haven't attended the fourth hearing
I didn't have to, *I* have read the report. Duh!!
do they combine to somehow conclude that Challenger and Columbia weren't "serious failures"?
I never said that, troll; but you trollishly try to imply that I did. Trolls are like that; they put words into people's mouth.
AC comments get piped to