Glorious Wastes of Time and Money
NASA recently announced that it will be basing the next generation of orbital flight and return vehicles (e.g. the space shuttle fleet) on the current space shuttle fleet. This, I feel, is a completely stupid and unwise move on the part of NASA and its current administrators.
Part of the problem with space flight, and reentry, is the heat that is generated as an orbiter returns to the atmosphere. This heat is so intense that being off the approach vector (angle) by only a few degrees can cause cataclysmic damage. They call this total or the crew on the shuttle dies.
In 2003 the problem with the shuttle was that a tile was impacted by foam that had come loose from the primary booster rocket, impacted the ceramic heat shield, and caused enough damage to the heat shield that upon reentry the shuttle literally burned up. All of the astronauts were killed.
So, NASA is planning its next generation of space vehicles and they are being built off of the current flight model. Meaning, when they start to design and develop the next shuttle they are basing it, primarily, on a failed design. That does not mean that the shuttle fleet hasn?t worked very well, but when you look at a common description of the shuttle, ?flying brick with wings? you get the idea that the maneuverability and ability for the space shuttle to do anything outside of go up and come down is pretty limited. Moreover, the exposed heat surfaces are made of a material that is easily broken. Therefore, a broken tile due to flying debris means total destruction upon reentry.
NASA?s grand plan is to mount future launch and return vehicles on top of the main fuel tank. That way, they say, debris doesn?t matter. At present the space shuttle is mounted next to the main fuel tank, and debris falls off, gets caught in the updraft, whipped around, or whatever, the shuttle is likely to be hit and damaged. Now, NASA wants to put that same fleet of vehicles on top of some very explosive materials built by the lowest bidder.
A year ago (little more now) Burt Rutan and his company Scaled Composites built a vehicle that could pass the theoretical line between the atmosphere and space. In order to accomplish this without burning up on reentry he built a semi-ingenious reentry device with wings that forced the craft to descend, bottom first, into the atmosphere. This causes two things to happen: First, the heat is dissipated over a larger surface area. And second, the wider area forces the craft to reenter slower than trying to force a brick with wings to vector into the atmosphere. In other words, NASA is trying to fly their vehicles into the atmosphere while Burt Rutan realized that the most efficient use of kinetic energy and gravitational pull was to allow the ship to fall back into the atmosphere and then control the ship once it has reached a safe distance.
Burt Ratan?s answer was to have the wings swing up so that the spaceship dropped straight down. Once it was back in the atmosphere the wings swung back into place and the ship was controllable as a glider (or unpowered airplane) until it landed at it?s designated airfield.
Yet, the success of Burt Rutan?s design and the fact that he successfully tested it over a two week period of time (the space shuttle was originally designed as a quickly reusable vehicle that takes months to disassemble and reassemble) seems lost on the ?smartest people on the planet? over at NASA.
I wonder, sometimes, if they are so smart that they are no longer able capable of viewing anything outside of what they think is right or proper. NASA may be wrong to continue in the vein of creation. Yet, here we go. I remember growing up and watching the space shuttle takes flight. That was one of the few times my parents would wake us up early, gather us in their bedroom, and we would watch the shuttle take off. This was exciting to me. At the same time I remember the Columbia blowing up and that was a tragedy. The nation mourned after that. Yet, the design has been maintained.
The design is being maintained. NASA is trying for Mars and the moon and our current space flight configuration isn?t going to change, significantly, and yet, we deal with problems like foam coming off of the exterior of a fuel tank and pieces of insulation hanging loose between the tiles. My suggestion, for NASA, would be to look carefully at what you are planning and where you are planning to go. Consider other option. At the moment, I don?t think you have. Keeping the current design template does not allow for the possibility of a better design and announcing that a team has determined this to be the best path doesn?t allow for much faith in the ingenuity of corporate America or in the genius of the American people. Right this second NASA is failing.