# NASA, or: How To Continue Beating Your Head Against A Brick Wall **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 27, 2005, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457 "2005-07-27T20:12:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/21 "2005-07-28T15:10:53Z")
> [@wolfstu](#): > > As far as I know, only atmospheric gliding tests (with the _Enterprise_ test craft) were done without a crew aboard, and all the orbital flights to date have had at least two pilots to fly the thing. (I may very easily be wrong.) The Approach And Landing Tests started with five unmanned captive flights. (i.e., the _Enterprise_ remained attached to the 747.) That was followed by three more captive flights with two-man crews. All five free-flights had crew aboard. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/22 "2005-07-28T15:18:23Z")
> [@](#): > > I’ve come to the sad conclusion that a large contingent of our astronauts corps basically wants to fly, and to hell with anything else, including sound economics or even self-preservation. I’m not sure it’s entirely a bad things that are willing to risk their lives. Although theyd eserve the best engineering, if they weren’t willing to rsik their lives for a chance at great adventure, I’d be very sad for the human race. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/23 "2005-07-28T15:31:37Z")
Screw the “great adventure!” If they want fun they should pay for it themselves. If I’m paying for the space equivalent of a Mack truck I want the reliabilty of a Mack truck. ---
**Author:** ![wolfstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d6d6ee/32.png) [@wolfstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfstu)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/24 "2005-07-28T15:39:43Z")
> [@Johnny L.A.](#): > > The Approach And Landing Tests started with five unmanned captive flights. (i.e., the _Enterprise_ remained attached to the 747.) That was followed by three more captive flights with two-man crews. All five free-flights had crew aboard. So, in short, no shuttle orbiter has ever been landed without a pilot, let alone deorbited without one. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/25 "2005-07-28T16:17:14Z")
Side commentary: Do you know why test flights are called pushing the envelope? It’s because when you graph speed versus altitude, max speed and max altitude are at the top right corner of the graph. That’s where envelopes get cancelled. That said, I think it is time and past time space travel was beyond being experimental. But, well, it’s still in the X-stage. The Shuttles were a boondoggle from day one, and a better craft has been needed since the first flight. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/26 "2005-07-28T16:25:34Z")
> [@wolfstu](#): > > So, in short, no shuttle orbiter has ever been landed without a pilot, let alone deorbited without one. But, I think, only twice has the orbiter been de-orbited under human control. It’s extrememly difficult, and so, up until the final couple minutes of the glide from orbit, the landing procedure is completely automated. The capability already exists to make the entire landing from orbit to ground completely automated. The Shuttle doesn’t really need people at all. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/27 "2005-07-28T17:01:25Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > Screw the “great adventure!” If they want fun they should pay for it themselves. If I’m paying for the space equivalent of a Mack truck I want the reliabilty of a Mack truck. The notion that the Shuttle is “a Mack truck” is a fallacy perpetrated by NASA and Rockwell upon Congress and the American public. The Shuttle is, in fact, a technology development platform which is being used as a transport and delivery vehicle; worse yet, they build four more, with mostly the same flaws as the original model. Nonetheless, we need an astronaut corps who are willing to accept risk in the furtherence of the technology of manned spaceflight, presuming, of course, that we consider manned spaceflight to be a desireable goal. But Shuttling people to NEO and back for the sake of performing high school experiements and supporting a space station, which exists primarily to justify the Shuttle supporting it, is a foolish risk that largely fails to advance scientific or technical knowledge. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/28 "2005-07-28T17:04:07Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > The Shuttle doesn’t really need people at all. Well now you’ve gone and let the cat out of the bag. Good job. Are you proud of yourself? 😉 Stranger ---
**Author:** ![wolfstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d6d6ee/32.png) [@wolfstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfstu)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/29 "2005-07-28T17:04:22Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Side commentary: Do you know why test flights are called pushing the envelope? > > It’s because when you graph speed versus altitude, max speed and max altitude are at the top right corner of the graph. > > That’s where envelopes get cancelled. Is this a joke? It was my understanding that the ‘flight envelope’ is the set of conditions that fully contain those expected for a given flight or craft. “Pushing the limits” of that envelope would be to operate in conditions near or beyond the defined limits. IE, if a plane is designed to fly at speeds from 0-300 km/h, at altitudes of 0-60,000 feet, and at accelerations of -3 to +7 G, the flight envelope is a 3-space with its limits at the values given. One is “pushing the envelope” when one operates at combinations of conditions close to or beyond those limits. Similarly, one of the aircraft I fly has a “loading envelope” that is roughly triangular when Load at Position A is plotted against Load at Position B. Is that not where this comes from? ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/30 "2005-07-28T17:15:13Z")
> [@fushj00mang](#): > > And in his Senate chambers, John H. Glenn mutters under his breath “You candyasses…” John Glenn vacated his Senate chambers in 1998. ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/31 "2005-07-28T17:44:08Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > John Glenn vacated his Senate chambers in 1998. I just “vacated the Senate chambers” myself. Ahhh. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/32 "2005-07-28T19:10:44Z")
It’s hard to say which term came first. I understand, from those Air Force and Army Air Corps pilots I know, that the ‘canceled’ definition, like ‘buying a farm’, is a driving force behind the adoption of it in the test pilot community. (Okay, my Dad, his friends, and my mother’s father. But my grandfather did know it, the last time I asked.) [http://www.nd.edu/~ndmag/w2001-02/wondering.html](http://www.nd.edu/~ndmag/w2001-02/wondering.html) Hm. So it was originated in the test pilot community. [http://www.salemfc.co.uk/html/quotes.html](http://www.salemfc.co.uk/html/quotes.html) > [@](#): > > When it comes to testing new aircraft or determining maximum performance, pilots like to talk about “pushing the envelope.” They’re talking about a two dimensional model: the bottom is zero altitude, the ground; the left is zero speed; the top is max altitude; and the right, maximum velocity, of course. So, the pilots are pushing that upper-right-hand corner of the envelope. What everybody tries not to dwell on is that that’s where the postage gets cancelled, too. > > — Admiral Rick Hunter, U.S. Navy. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/33 "2005-07-28T20:10:36Z")
The whole manned space program makes no sense to me; the Space Shuttle is a 1970s-vintage space bus, and the ISS is just some place to drive it to. If we’re going to have a manned space program, it should have some better goals than that. It should also have a spacecraft that (whatever improvements may have been grafted on) is based on technology more recent than that of the Nixon Administration. But really, I see no need for a manned space program at all. And given our ability to go from the pre-satellite era to a moon landing in 12 years during the 1950s and 60s, I see no need for us to maintain a manned space program ‘just in case.’ If a genuine need arises, we’ll be able to get our act together pretty quickly. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/34 "2005-07-28T20:47:53Z")
> [@Stranger On A Train](#): > > But Shuttling people to NEO and back for the sake of performing high school experiements and supporting a space station, which exists primarily to justify the Shuttle supporting it, is a foolish risk that largely fails to advance scientific or technical knowledge. > > Stranger I’d say it’s worse. By sucking up funds from the meager space exploration budget that would be far more fruitfully spent on robotic probes and space telescopes, these ultrasonic paperweights have hindered the advance of scientific knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/35 "2005-07-28T20:48:26Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > It should also have a spacecraft that (whatever improvements may have been grafted on) is based on technology more recent than that of the Nixon Administration. Well, sometimes “mature” technologies are a lot more effective than bleeding edge ones. Russia’s Big Dumb Boosters (as they were disparagely referred to before we realized, after _Challenger_’s crackup, that they’re also effective) have been the savior and mainstay of our joint efforts. A good space program would maintain and improve existing designs, as we did with Mercury/Gemini/Apollo, while spending efforts into developing the next generation of spaceflight technologies. The blunder of the Shuttle isn’t that it was a bad idea; it’s that NASA (owing to self-preservation in the post-Space Race environment and budget restrictions from 1970 through the early Reagan-era) placed all of its needs and plans for manned spaceflight into one vehicle, which turns out to be flawed (as any new design will be) and nonscalable. Even codeveloping an unmanned heavy booster off of Shuttle propulsion hardware, such as the proposed Ares booster/SDLV (see ATK’s proposed [ETS](http://www.safesimplesoon.com/)) would have been good step. Instead, NASA has insisted that the Shuttle is for lofting people and cargo simultaneously. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > But really, I see no need for a manned space program at all. And given our ability to go from the pre-satellite era to a moon landing in 12 years during the 1950s and 60s, I see no need for us to maintain a manned space program ‘just in case.’ If a genuine need arises, we’ll be able to get our act together pretty quickly. There’s an argument to be made here–certainly, post-Cold War justifications based upon commerical technology investment, scientific value of manned spaceflight, et cetera don’t hold water any better than fishnet pantyhose–but I don’t personally agree with it. You could say the same about unmanned flight, and indeed, any scientific or exploratory research that isn’t applications based. So what if their are crazy sulfur-eating bacteria in the ocean? So what if the Mountain Zebra isn’t actually a zebra? So what if the universe is 13.7 billion years old? These aren’t questions that give us brighter lightbulbs or stronger teeth or eliminate the dreaded static cling. But they do expand our knowledge of the universe, from its furthest reaches to its smallest crannies; they do offer a new viewpoint by which to see the world and our place in it; they do offer us new opportunities, challenges, and frontiers. Like great art, it appeals to our desire to connect beyond the limitations of our integumentary containers. And someday, perhaps, we might find that the knowledge we pursued out of pure curiosity ends up being our key to erudation and salvation. This isn’t something you can justify as a ROI on a balance sheet, but then, neither is love or war. Personally, I just like the cutaway diagrams of shiny '60s-era spacecraft concepts, with the little astronauts eating food jelly from tubes and playing Pong on massive computer workstations. Nostalgia for the days when everything was bright and new, I guess. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/36 "2005-07-29T08:07:18Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > So “STS-300” uses Atlantis? I wonder what shape that thing is in, because I’d imagine they would have used the most flight ready shuttle for the mission. The RTF guidelines specified that NASA **must** have a second shuttle capable of being launched within a short period of time, before sending up the first shuttle. Now, the shuttle can remain in orbit for 14 days, IIRC, with the typical provisioning, and could probably stay up a day or two longer than that, with careful managing of resources (put them in an Apollo 13 type scenerio, where **everything** that’s not needed for talking with the ground or keeping the crew alive is powered down, and you might be able to get even longer time), as for the ISS, I don’t remember what the original full crew compliment was supposed to be, but adding a full shuttle load of folks is going to start putting a crimp in things. The shuttle resupply missions do carry a good chunk of food for the astronauts stationed on the ISS, and they’ve been growing and eating food up there, so they wouldn’t starve, though their caloric intake might not be as high as they’d like, but oxygen’s going to be a problem. Too many people up there for too long is going to put a strain on things and they’ll wind up “breathing their socks.” So, as a WAG, I’d say that they probably wouldn’t want to keep the guys up there for more than a month. Of course, one problem that no one’s really looked at, is that there’s all sorts of wiring in the shuttle which **hasn’t** been checked out in ages, since it’s so difficult to get to, and if it turns out that _Discovery_ has a serious problem in that wiring, and _Atlantis_ has the smae number of flight hours or more as _Discovery_, then you’re left with the question: Do we risk sending up another potentially bad shuttle to try and save the crew? Even worse is that [NASA’s now saying, “We don’t know what the hell to do about the foam.”](http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ap_rtf_griffin_050728.html) > [@](#): > > NASA may never be able to prevent threatening chunks of insulation foam from breaking off the shuttle’s fuel tank during launch, the agency’s chief said Thursday, a day after future flights were ordered grounded because of the problem during Discovery’s liftoff. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/37 "2005-07-29T14:25:31Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > Even worse is that [NASA’s now saying, “We don’t know what the hell to do about the foam.”](http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ap_rtf_griffin_050728.html) Just a thought, but how about using a real big version of **Stranger** ’s fishnet pantyhose to hold the chunks on? ---
**Author:** ![Guy\_Incognito\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ed655f/32.png) [@Guy\_Incognito\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guy_Incognito_1)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/38 "2005-07-29T15:30:29Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > If we’re going to have a manned space program, it should have some better goals than that. I agree that the space program should have a better, more ambitious set of goals, but I think those goals should include both manned and unmanned mission agendas. We should not only be sending Von Neumann probes into deep space by the hundred, we should also be much more aggressively working toward human exploration, colonization and settlement of Mars. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/39 "2005-07-29T16:29:27Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > Just a thought, but how about using a real big version of **Stranger** ’s fishnet pantyhose to hold the chunks on? It’d probably weigh too much. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/40 "2005-07-29T16:51:59Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > Just a thought, but how about using a real big version of **Stranger** ’s fishnet pantyhose to hold the chunks on? Or we could use a really big condom. We could stamp it ‘MEDIUM’. 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457.md?page=3)