# 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:** 3
**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 29, 2005, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/41 "2005-07-29T16:59:08Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > Just a thought, but how about using a real big version of **Stranger** ’s fishnet pantyhose to hold the chunks on? That’s not a bad idea in concept–either placing a retaining layer over the foam, or spraying the foam through some kind of structural matrix analogous to rebar in concrete–but in reality the foam isn’t all one continuous piece, but rather a layer spread over a variety of protrusions. For instance, [this picture](http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/system/system_ET.html) shows where the piece of foam that came from _Columbia_’s ex-tank was located. TPS (thermal protection systems, or a fancy name for foam or cork insulation) breaking off and falling has always occured with any booster utilizing cryogenic fuel or oxidizer; if you look back at old Saturn V launch gantry film clips you’ll see a veritable storm of TPS falling as it launches, shaken free by the engine vibrations. For a vertical stack this generally isn’t an issue; the detritus falls outboard and in any case the rocket segments and interstages are robust enough to survive a glancing hit from a chunk of foam, but as someone else ( **Hyperelastic**?) mentioned in another thread on the issue, the Shuttle’s parallel stack and large-aspect leading surfaces make it more vulnerable to damage from falling insulation, especially if it is frozen and hard. The proper solution is to redesign the tank with sufficient insulation inside (or at least in the critical areas) such that external insulation is either unnecessary or thin enough not to be a risk. This is not, though, a trivial task to undertake, and has many other implications (reduced payload and fuel capacity, difficulty with fabrication and inspection, et cetera). NASA clearly wanted to avoid virtually redesigning the entire tank so they threw in a few obvious fixes that ameliorate the problem without getting to the root cause (i.e. foam falls off). Stranger ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/42 "2005-07-29T18:19:45Z")
> [@wolfstu](#): > > So, in short, no shuttle orbiter has ever been landed without a pilot, let alone deorbited without one. Not an American one. The Russian Buran shuttle did on November 15, 1988 > **[Buran, The Russian Shuttle](https://www.gizmohighway.com/space/buran.htm)** > > Gizmo Highway - Bringing togeather technologies, past, present and future [http://www.hightechscience.org/buran\_space\_shuttle.htm](http://www.hightechscience.org/buran_space_shuttle.htm) ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/43 "2005-07-29T18:21:33Z")
Whoops, forgot the important part… > [@](#): > > Bearing a striking resemblance to the USA Space Shuttle the BURAN orbiter is clamed to be technologically superior but unfortunately due to funding cuts by the Russian government the project was cancelled after only one successful unmanned test mission. **in November 1988 the Buran was launched to circle the earth twice when it then automatically landed without fault and unmanned, the US Space Shuttle cannot operate unmanned like the Buran.** ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/44 "2005-07-29T18:23:09Z")
Don’t get me started on the Russian Concorde. 😛 (Yeah those dudes ripped everything off) ---
**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, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/45 "2005-07-29T18:46:06Z")
> [@Stranger On A Train](#): > > …but in reality the foam isn’t all one continuous piece, but rather a layer spread over a variety of protrusions. Which is why I suggested a single piece cover akin to a nylon stocking. It doesn’t need to be heavy or particulary strong since it’s just preventing chunks from falling off and into the path of the Shuttle. The chunks could even slide down and fall out the bottom for all I care. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/46 "2005-07-29T19:00:28Z")
Why has no one mentioned duct tape? ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/47 "2005-07-29T19:11:06Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > Whoops, forgot the important part… Huh. There was all this talk last year about flying the Shuttle unmaned. There didn’t seem to be any question of if it were possible, and I know I’ve read someplace it’s totally doable with just some changes to the avionics software. [This](http://www.spacedaily.com/news/shuttle-03o2.html) article seems to take as a given launch, orbit, de-orbit, and landing unmanned as a given. The author only seems concerned about the complications involved in automatically maneuvering the Shuttle to the ISS. ---
**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, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/48 "2005-07-29T19:22:49Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > Why has no one mentioned duct tape? I was going to make a slight joke but then realized that, seriously, it would be more than they are doing now. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/49 "2005-07-29T19:45:57Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > [This](http://www.spacedaily.com/news/shuttle-03o2.html) article seems to take as a given launch, orbit, de-orbit, and landing unmanned as a given. The author only seems concerned about the complications involved in automatically maneuvering the Shuttle to the ISS. I could see that being a big problem. The Buran only circled the earth twice, and certaining didn’t have to worry about docking in orbit. ---
**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 29, 2005, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/50 "2005-07-29T20:14:48Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > Which is why I suggested a single piece cover akin to a nylon stocking. It doesn’t need to be heavy or particulary strong since it’s just preventing chunks from falling off and into the path of the Shuttle. The chunks could even slide down and fall out the bottom for all I care. “Launch Control to _Atlantis_; you’ve got a run in your stocking. Repeat, you’ve got a run in your stocking.” “_Atlantis_ to Launch control; copy that. Do you have any hairspray we can borrow?” “_Atlantis_, that’s a negative. Suggest you check with the Hygiene Section.” “Launch Conrol, affirmative. Hey, by the way, is our slip showing?” Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/51 "2005-07-29T20:38:11Z")
> [@Stranger On A Train](#): > > “Launch Control to _Atlantis_; you’ve got a run in your stocking. Repeat, you’ve got a run in your stocking.” > > “_Atlantis_ to Launch control; copy that. Do you have any hairspray we can borrow?” Listen, if this is the quality of NASA’s work, we are truly in trouble. Everyone knows it’s _clear nail polish_ that stops a run. Hairspray takes out ink. (Confidential to **Eve** : you are, simply, brilliant.) ---
**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 29, 2005, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/52 "2005-07-29T20:45:56Z")
> [@Campion](#): > > Listen, if this is the quality of NASA’s work, we are truly in trouble. > > Everyone knows it’s _clear nail polish_ that stops a run. Hairspray takes out ink. :smack: Look, this is cosmotology, not rocket science. We engineers don’t know anything about this stuff. 😃 Stranger ---
**Author:** ![fushj00mang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d26b3c/32.png) [@fushj00mang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fushj00mang)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/53 "2005-07-30T04:03:36Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > John Glenn vacated his Senate chambers in 1998. > [@Col. Nathan Jessup](#): > > Don’t I feel like the fucking asshole? :smack: ---
**Author:** ![fushj00mang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d26b3c/32.png) [@fushj00mang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fushj00mang)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/54 "2005-07-30T04:08:25Z")
And aparently I can’t code any better than NASA can fix the shuttle. ☹☹ ---
**Author:** ![NinetyWt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/cc9497/32.png) [@NinetyWt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NinetyWt)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/55 "2005-07-30T07:23:37Z")
I went to University with Bill Parsons. He wasnt’ very impressive as an enginering student. The space program today is a far cry from when my dad worked engineering behind the scenes for the Apollo missions. Now it’s a lot more show, blow and go. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/56 "2005-08-01T15:21:26Z")
> [@Stranger On A Train](#): > > Well, sometimes “mature” technologies are a lot more effective than bleeding edge ones. I gotta agree with you there. In addition to your example of Russia’s ‘Big Dumb Boosters’, the B-52 bomber comes to mind. It’s just that the space shuttle isn’t exactly one of those tried-and-true mature technologies. > [@](#): > > You could say the same [that there’s no need for a manned space program] 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. Hell, you could say it about _anything_ - why stop where you did? But the thing is, our current manned space program doesn’t accomplish _anything_ of note, utilitarian **or not**. It doesn’t take us anywhere new, it doesn’t add anything of importance to our knowledge base. It’s all about driving a very expensive, unreliable, dangerous bus to low earth orbit (and the space station) and back. Really, why bother? ---
**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:** [August 1, 2005, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/57 "2005-08-01T15:31:38Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > It’s just that the space shuttle isn’t exactly one of those tried-and-true mature technologies. Actually, it’s more of a “tried-and-failed” technology. :smack: > [@RTFirefly](#): > > But the thing is, our current manned space program doesn’t accomplish _anything_ of note, utilitarian **or not**. It doesn’t take us anywhere new, it doesn’t add anything of importance to our knowledge base. It’s all about driving a very expensive, unreliable, dangerous bus to low earth orbit (and the space station) and back. > > Really, why bother? Well, I can’t argue with you (much) there. What little our manned space program does that is adding to our knowledge and capabilities could be more cheaply, effectively, and safely done with systems other than the Shuttle. That doesn’t mean manned exploration isn’t worthwhile overall, though I don’t think anyone can make a vaild short-term economic case for it. The purpose should be to explore–not perform high school science experiments in orbit or suit political machinations down below. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Earthworm\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Earthworm\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earthworm_Jim)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/58 "2005-08-01T16:19:27Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > 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. I should point out that that was Admiral Rick Hunter of the Robotech Defense Forces, in the novelization of the classic 80s semi-anime, Robotech. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/59 "2005-08-01T17:37:42Z")
> [@Stranger On A Train](#): > > The purpose should be to explore–not perform high school science experiments in orbit or suit political machinations down below. I’m with you on that. But having agreed with you there, here’s the problems I run into: 1. We’ve already been to the moon. There’s no intellectually compelling reason to make a return trip. 2. Any manned exploration beyond the moon is going to be twenty times as difficult, and probably a similar multiple on the expense. That’s raising the ante really, really high - you could solve _major_ problems here on Earth for that sort of money. 3. Unmanned probes are already doing a terrific job of exploring the other planets and their satellites, sending back lots of data and great pictures, for a fraction of what it takes to keep the shuttle program alive. I think what would be more interesting than a manned Mars mission would be an unmanned Alpha Centauri probe. There would be some interesting engineering/IT challenges, such as: i) Finding a way to propel it there fast enough that we’d have a chance to see how the mission turns out; ii) developing software that will enable the probe to deal with challenges at the other end all by itself (the 8.6 year round trip for a radio signal requires that); and, speaking of which: iii) being able to broadcast a signal over that distance that we can pick up at this end, with a transmitter and power source small and light enough to make the trip. Getting a close-up view of another star/solar system would be pretty spectacular. ---
**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:** [August 1, 2005, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457/60 "2005-08-01T18:50:34Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > 1. We’ve already been to the moon. There’s no intellectually compelling reason to make a return trip. I can’t disagree with that. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > 1. Any manned exploration beyond the moon is going to be twenty times as difficult, and probably a similar multiple on the expense. That’s raising the ante really, really high - **you could solve _major_ problems here on Earth for that sort of money**. I have to take a bit of an issue with this; we’ve been throwing money at many of the “major” humanitarian problems on Earth for decades now with no resolution in sight; the truth is, we’ve the agricultural and logistical ability to provide a diet with at least minimum nutritional requirements to everyone on the planet. We could defeat, or at least control, most of the major infectious illnesses that afflict the nations of the Third World. And so forth. But the combination of political will, social cooperativeness, and applied wisdom seems to be lacking, for which no amount of money will compensate. Despite the billions spent by the UN and European nations on Africa, their problems are worse than ever, and many make the case that the manner and conditions by which the aid was provided served to increase the problems. We could shut down the space program and put the money into social programs–but based on past experience, this wouldn’t guarantee, or even offer much confidence, that this would serve to alieviate those problems. The Proximire Fallacy doesn’t hold water. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > 1. Unmanned probes are already doing a terrific job of exploring the other planets and their satellites, sending back lots of data and great pictures, for a fraction of what it takes to keep the shuttle program alive. I can’t disagree with this, either; as I stated, there’s no short-term ROI on manned space exploration. The reason to do it is…so we develop the technology to do it. It is our future. (Whether it makes sense to do it now is another question.) Nonetheless, there are a large number of missions in which remotely-controlled probes are not only as effective (and cheaper than) human missions, but actually superior; one doesn’t have to worry about returning a probe, or providing for food and water, or unstuffing a jammed toilet half-way to Titan. Stranger [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-or-how-to-continue-beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall/314457.md?page=4)