I guess what is overlooked so often(in the wake of a disaster or simple
failure) is that tradeoffs are the rule, not the exception. Nobody wants to pay
higher taxes to insure that space exploration is a safe venture, by definition
it is not and there is no reason to pretend it ever will be. Citing this
contractor versus that contractor (politically involved or no)is almost
useless. You spend too much here, and you have to make compromises there, there
is the rub. The bottom line is...after all..the bottom line. The comedy is that
the most brilliant successes and failures you will never hear about. The SR-71
for instance. Can you imagine how much money was spent on titanium and
molecular phase research aspect alone on this project. I'm sure the failures
were as stagering as the unsaid(unpublished) blazing successes. And we are led
to believe it is in retirement, probably for our own speculative good. The
SR-71 probably represents the pinacle of space research(in my opinion) over
that of Apollo or the Space Shuttle. Yet, it also represents the ideal research
environment where uncompromised budgeting capability can take a project if the
government warrants it a necessity. Thus, disqualified from the running. ..If
you believe, they put a man on the moon. I diverge. Then again, this whole
letter is divergent. What were we talking about again? Oh yea, for added HP,
remove the fan and rear view mirror....and add one ASRM from a performance
company in Iuka, MS to the luggage rack. Don't worry about the tire size,
they'll burn off on re-entry.
;-)
PS-Don't forget the drag shoot.
Steve Nabors
'74 TR6
B'ham AL
--
On Sat, 18 Dec 1999 22:35:51 Roy wrote:
>
>>shuttle booster in pieces vs. one piece>
>I worked for Thiokol at Redstone Arsenal in the '80s making Sidewinder and
>Maverick, among other rocket motors. Sorry, your history is a little off.
>First, Sen. Hatch was not the head of appropriations back when the decisions
>were made to use sections instead of one piece. The decision was made back
>in the late 60's - early 70's (and actually earlier in principle). Thiokol
>built a 260-inch diameter (it might have been 300-inch, can't remember for
>sure) single casting motor in Glynn County, Georgia (near Brunswick). It
>required continuously casting the propellant over a couple days to fill it
>up. In testing it didn't work. It was too hard to do the continuous
>propellant casting. Shuttle propellant is basically rubber as a binder with
>aluminum powder fuel. Besides, the motor diameter was too large to be
>shipped anywhere. So, NASA decided to go with the 240-inch sections, because
>they are the largest that can be conveniently shipped by barge and rail
>among other reasons.
>
>>Sen. Hatch in space>
>Sorry again. That was Senator Bill Nelson, and later Senator John Glenn, not
>Sen. Orrin Hatch. I think there also was Jake Garn who might have become a
>senator after his flights?
>
>rockets were cool, but frankly, TR3's are a little safer....;>)
>Roy
>'60 TR3a TS63103LO (in restoration)
>techman@metrolink.net
>
>
>
|