Given the fact that NASA has consistent problems, I’d say that I or Matt Parker and Trey Stone, couldn’t do any worse. Whatever merits Matt and Trey may have, I’m also a hardcore space geek, I’ve got copies of the Saturn V manual given to the astronauts, the LM manual given to astronauts, the blueprints for the launch tower for the Saturn V, a model of the LM I designed myself, and well the list goes on and on. I may be some random asshole on the internet, bitching about NASA, but I’m not an ignorant random asshole, bitching about NASA.
See Lute’s comment about “King Nerd.” And I’d be scared to operate anything designed by an engineer who’s first instinct *wasn’t * to use jargon when he spoke.
Oh, I don’t have to think hard at all. The third possibility is that Griffin’s an ignorant boob who got his degrees based on something other than his IQ. I’m trying to give him the benefit of a doubt, however.
No, no, “tin foil hat” territory is clearly over where they think that NASA’s got dead aliens, FTL ships, and is covering up the fact that there’s little green men running around on Mars. It’s also populated by folks who think that we never went to the Moon to begin with. That three posters have stepped into this thread and recounted instances of NASA fucking up and covering up (and tomndebb’s comments should be considered above reproach, IMHO, because I’ve yet to see an instance where he’s been flat out wrong about something), says that there’s a problem. The fact that the “new NASA” somehow allowed too much gap filler around tiles escape detection until the shuttle got to orbit, indicates that there’s something wrong. This NPR piece, indicates that there’s something wrong. Do we need another seven dead astronauts before you’ll be able to grasp that fact?
And while Derleth may quibble with Lute’s source for “King Nerd” being jargon, I’d be surprised if Griffin didn’t have some passing familiarity with it’s source.
I’ll assume that the gap filler was not protruding before launch, otherwise it would have been detected by visual inspection. How it came loose during the launch is another question, and I’m sure that it will be carefully examined after the orbiter has landed.
To go into space? You bet your ass I would. I fly in an unarmed, relatively low altitude aircraft in the middle of combat zones. We’ve lost props, power, altitude, had serious safety of flight issues related to mission equipment, and we’ve been shot at. I have put on a parachute with the intent to use it three times in my career, and I’m a short-timer. Going into space at 50-1 might be the safest thing I’ve ever done. I dare say that it’s a bit safer than what I ordinarily do. That we have never lost an aircraft or had a Class A accident in 5 years is entirely luck.
Something bugs me about this statement - it’s almost as if you think engineers are some kind of oddity (that’s probably not what you mean, but…). Just because an engineer doesn’t speak in “jargon” doesn’t mean he/she is not a good designer.
As an engineer of sorts I thought “goof” was engineering jargon meaning “minor fuckup,” which is also engineering jargon but you can’t say it in a press conference. “Major malfunction” is jargon for “massive fuckup” or “print your resumes now before the guys from security lock up your laptops.”
Seriously, isn’t it possible to view this as a product of a system that has a monopoly on its industry and in which every employee is a government employee? What do you have to do to lose the contract on US govt space missions? Can it be anything NASA hasn’t already done? What do you have to do to be fired? Has anyone been fired for these kinds of things? I haven’t heard about it if it’s happened.
If these gaps need to be filled before reentry then why pull the filler out instead of shoving it in better and if the gaps don’t need to be filled then why bother with the filler? Will these gaps upset airflow and create turbulence while providing a convenient conduit for heat past the tiles?
This is sounding like a goof that can become a major malfunction.
Most of the work is done by contractors, not civil service employees. Companies do lose contracts for poor performance, they are also financially penalized for poor performance.
If you want to rant about NASA, fine. But educate yourself first. I’m sick and tired of reading ignorant screeds about how evil NASA is, from people whose thought processes are limited to “Space good! NASA bad!”.
The problem with doing just a visual inspection is that the shuttle’s tiles are all individually shaped and have to be fitted into position with exacting tolerances. You don’t check that stuff visually, because your eyes aren’t capable of seeing things that small. NASA’s just gotten a new piece of gear to check the tiles.
For the gap filler to work its way out means that either someone placed the tiles incorrectly, or there’s a problem with the adhesive again (after Challenger they found out that employees were spitting in it to speed up the drying time, which weakened the bond). I wouldn’t be too sure that NASA’s going to take the appropriate corrective actions, either. After Challenger, NASA swore they’d never get “launch fever” again, from the way this mission’s going, it looks like they’ve got a bad case of it.
Don’t forget, that in the design specs, it specifically states that foam cannot be allowed to fall off and strike the shuttle.
So, IOW, the foam was a known issue from the beginning, but was ignored until Columbia, and it appears that the corrective actions taken by NASA weren’t sufficient.
Missed it the first time. Actually, IMHO, a “good engineer” is some kind of oddity. Point being that an average engineer is going to be designing things in the conventional manner, while a (IMHO) good engineer is going to be someone like Rutan or the guys who designed the LM, who take an unconventional approach at designing something. If you’re building something like a toaster, or even a car, you can have an average engineer in charge of the project and do fine. Sticking an average engineer in charge of something that’s supposed to be on the bleeding edge of technology (like the shuttle when it was concieved), is asking for trouble, IMHO.
Heh. Calatrava is a great artist of architecture, but a great engineer he is not. His original detail concepts for the Milwaukee Art Museum were changed drastically by the engineer firms actually contracted to turn his paintings and sketches. (Calatrava was initially trained as a painter and scuplter before reading in civil engineering.) The final overall appearance is similar to his conceptual work but the detail design is Kahler Slater and their engineering subcontractors. The wings are still problematic in operation and maintainence, and although the building is beautiful (the interior of the addition looks like a set from from some futuristic utopian movie) it’s highly questionable that it was worth the $100M it cost. If Calatrava designed the Space Shuttle it would look gorgeous and fast, with vast open spans and plenty of open views and dynamics, sweeping arcs. But it wouldn’t go anywhere.
A good engineer is someone who knows both standard design principles and the fundamental science behind them, and can make the judgement of what compromises are acceptible and result in a net benefit. This is a difficult task on something as complex as the Shuttle, which was magnified by the fact that virtually every major conceptual design decision was based as much on political concerns as economic and engineering rationales.
As for Rutan and the Space Ship One/White Knight, neither the concept nor many of the engineering details are particularly original; SS1 is conceptually similar to an updates, stripped down X-20 Dyna-Soar (not requiring the heat shielding or the capacity of that vessel, of course). The hybrid-type rocket engine isn’t in broad use for a number of reasons but the idea of it actually predates pure solid fuel boosters. That doesn’t detract from Rutan’s successes, but it doesn’t mean that every idea he has is going to work or that he’s a good candidate to lead a reorganized space development effort; in fact, he’s probably more effective as a loose cannon asking questions and demonstrating needlessly rejected technology.
