Before Columbia, there was never a problem with foam insulation, so even if we had used a nuclear rocket of sorts, chances are foam would still have been used in some parts or others and possibly resulted in a similar tragedy. However, the alternative means of keeping the tank cool (as discussed in the article) is still safer than risking global spread of radioactive particles and risking the lives of millions and their offspring by using such materials in rockets.
I never said nor implied that. Any disaster, no matter how great or small, is a loss of opportunity to progress and impacts the future in ways we may not imagine.
By disaster, I don't mean only the loss of life, but the loss of opportunity to progress.
Re:STS is great tech - Shuttle is horrible blech
on
Shuttle Fleet Upgraded
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The "right stuff" was so right because of fierce competition during the cold war. Now that the U.S. is the superpower, it no longer has anything to prove, and tax payers are anxious about spending more money on the space program. We spend so much on defense yet so little on what may eventually save our asses: space exploration.
You are forgetting that the Columbia incident had nothing to do with the engine system. The "Nuclear Rocket" uses hydrgen as its fuel, which also needs to be kept cool, hence a similar scenario of foams and what not. Needless to say, you don't want radioactive material showering down on the whole world if it decides to explode in midair, and statistically speaking, that scenario would be inevitable.
Actually, the purpose of the foam is to keep the tanks from getting warm (as liquid hydrogen/oxygen have very low boiling points) and to keep ice from forming on the exterior.
While it is probably a step in the right direction, I find it saddening that we must have disasters to begin upgrading certain aspects of the shuttles. In my opinion, every aspect of the fleet should always be tested, simulated, improved, and tested some more every single month. Who's to say that another shuttle won't go down in a decade or so due to a problem that was never considered?
It's really a weight issue. Beagle 2 is 68 Kilograms. The Viking landers were around 576 Kilograms, around 200 pounds of which was fuel. Beagle 2 was also done on a shoestring budget, which would have made it impossible to build and test custom engines (perhaps hydrazine monopropellant, as used on the Vikings). Furthermore, launch cost would have been increased as a result of the weight, not to mention further complicating the design of the Mars Express, upon which Beagle 2 hitched the ride. Again, we still don't know what happened, so to assume that the lander was damaged due to the bounces is pretty ridiculous. It could have been a million other single-point failures, as the lander had absolutely no redundancy whatsoever.
Even with modern technology, it would be impossible to land and study Venus for extended periods, as the pressures would simply crush and melt the craft within hours, if not minutes. It is a cruel mistress, in fact, more so than Mars.
Actually, Jesus wasn't born on the 25th of December, but rather, it was a special day (IIRC, of the birth) for the pre-Christian religion known as the Cult of Mithras. However, to divert attention away from it and to erase it from history, Christians inlaid upon it what we have come to know as Christmas.
Let's not forget the moon was thoroughly studied by spacecraft before a single person was sent. Also, it had no atmosphere, so there was never the problem of entry and friction and all that good stuff. Of course, a human can possibly take into account factors which the computer might not, but as of now, no manned space re-entry vehicle lands under human control: they're all automated. It is just too much for us to handle.
So when something prior to descent goes wrong, both landers die? Remember that quite a few have died on their way to Mars and not during landing. That includes failing to reach Earth orbit, failing to travel to Mars, failing to get into Mars orbit, ed cetera.
Not that having hope will somehow change the fate of the lander, but I think we shouldn't all discount the very probable circumstance that it survived. I truly hope it has survived the landing.
That's a poor argument, because our tax money goes to fund top military technology, and yet we have no access to them, their photos, their descriptions, or even acknowledgments of their existence, in some instances. Perhaps there is life on Mars; it is very probable. It is also possible that the United States wants to eventually get the upper hand in capitalizing on Mars and its resources and is taking steps to discourage other capable countries (Russia, Japan, UK, et centera) from benefiting equally. After all, money and wealth are the objectives of any capitalist country.BR>
Slashdot Mirror
If you're so sure that this has been an "elementary problem" why don't you provide proof?
Before Columbia, there was never a problem with foam insulation, so even if we had used a nuclear rocket of sorts, chances are foam would still have been used in some parts or others and possibly resulted in a similar tragedy. However, the alternative means of keeping the tank cool (as discussed in the article) is still safer than risking global spread of radioactive particles and risking the lives of millions and their offspring by using such materials in rockets.
I never said nor implied that. Any disaster, no matter how great or small, is a loss of opportunity to progress and impacts the future in ways we may not imagine.
By disaster, I don't mean only the loss of life, but the loss of opportunity to progress.
The "right stuff" was so right because of fierce competition during the cold war. Now that the U.S. is the superpower, it no longer has anything to prove, and tax payers are anxious about spending more money on the space program. We spend so much on defense yet so little on what may eventually save our asses: space exploration.
You are forgetting that the Columbia incident had nothing to do with the engine system. The "Nuclear Rocket" uses hydrgen as its fuel, which also needs to be kept cool, hence a similar scenario of foams and what not. Needless to say, you don't want radioactive material showering down on the whole world if it decides to explode in midair, and statistically speaking, that scenario would be inevitable.
Actually, the purpose of the foam is to keep the tanks from getting warm (as liquid hydrogen/oxygen have very low boiling points) and to keep ice from forming on the exterior.
While it is probably a step in the right direction, I find it saddening that we must have disasters to begin upgrading certain aspects of the shuttles. In my opinion, every aspect of the fleet should always be tested, simulated, improved, and tested some more every single month. Who's to say that another shuttle won't go down in a decade or so due to a problem that was never considered?
The Viking weight is from the official web site, but the fuel weight was from memory from having read official specs. No harm done. :)
But you have to be PC and make heroes out of all who tried yet failed miserably. Such is the modern climate.
It's really a weight issue. Beagle 2 is 68 Kilograms. The Viking landers were around 576 Kilograms, around 200 pounds of which was fuel. Beagle 2 was also done on a shoestring budget, which would have made it impossible to build and test custom engines (perhaps hydrazine monopropellant, as used on the Vikings). Furthermore, launch cost would have been increased as a result of the weight, not to mention further complicating the design of the Mars Express, upon which Beagle 2 hitched the ride. Again, we still don't know what happened, so to assume that the lander was damaged due to the bounces is pretty ridiculous. It could have been a million other single-point failures, as the lander had absolutely no redundancy whatsoever.
Even with modern technology, it would be impossible to land and study Venus for extended periods, as the pressures would simply crush and melt the craft within hours, if not minutes. It is a cruel mistress, in fact, more so than Mars.
It seems mod points are directly related to post length. Shame.
Actually, Jesus wasn't born on the 25th of December, but rather, it was a special day (IIRC, of the birth) for the pre-Christian religion known as the Cult of Mithras. However, to divert attention away from it and to erase it from history, Christians inlaid upon it what we have come to know as Christmas.
Let's not forget the moon was thoroughly studied by spacecraft before a single person was sent. Also, it had no atmosphere, so there was never the problem of entry and friction and all that good stuff. Of course, a human can possibly take into account factors which the computer might not, but as of now, no manned space re-entry vehicle lands under human control: they're all automated. It is just too much for us to handle.
So when something prior to descent goes wrong, both landers die? Remember that quite a few have died on their way to Mars and not during landing. That includes failing to reach Earth orbit, failing to travel to Mars, failing to get into Mars orbit, ed cetera.
Not that having hope will somehow change the fate of the lander, but I think we shouldn't all discount the very probable circumstance that it survived. I truly hope it has survived the landing.
RTFP, my friend, RTFP.
Put the weed down...
I was being sarcastic, you idiot.
Wow, stunning...not. Even after the upgrade, it will be outdated before it ever finds a use.
That's a poor argument, because our tax money goes to fund top military technology, and yet we have no access to them, their photos, their descriptions, or even acknowledgments of their existence, in some instances. Perhaps there is life on Mars; it is very probable. It is also possible that the United States wants to eventually get the upper hand in capitalizing on Mars and its resources and is taking steps to discourage other capable countries (Russia, Japan, UK, et centera) from benefiting equally. After all, money and wealth are the objectives of any capitalist country.BR>
Worst show ever.
Master and commander!
Don't worry about it, man, I was just whoring for a "5, Funny," but looks like I'll have to settle for a 3. :D