Nasa

Discussion in 'General' started by Blix, Jun 12, 2003.

  1. Just a quick question. Why weren't the space shuttles
    designed with survivable crew compartments?

    I mean something like, the computer senses that something
    is going drastically wrong, and ejects the crew compartment.

    I mean, sure you lose a shuttle, but the crew survive.
    You just give it an unpopulated aproach path, and no one
    dies.
     
  2. Because at the time of the design and build, the 70's it was "not technically feasible" (i've had talks with shuttle engineers from VAB at KSC about this and proposed some new ideas for reentry vehicle design)

    PEace
     
  3. a simple question with a simple answer....

    the money guys got involved. :(
     
  4. Great. So we've lost two crews, plus the first civilian in space.
    Well she would've been anyway.

    Was it not technically feasable to design one after the
    challenger? Is it not technically feasable to design one into
    the next reuseable orbital vehicle?

    These aren't sarcastic questions, TooSicks, I really want to know.

    I've just typed out all that, and thought to myself, why not go to www.nasa.gov ?

    Anyway, off to the research.
     
  5. "not technically feasible" roughly translated means... not financially feasable due to budget and time constraints ie, the willpower wasnt there.
     
  6. AKA not technically feasible. Not impossible, but also not "worth it"

    Later versions of the shuttle were "built" from the same production runs as the first, and were basically spare parts that weren't needed and were assembled into additional launch vehicles.
     
  7. Okay, cost I'll never understand as a reason when it comes
    to saving lives.

    But weight that could affect center of gravity and flight
    dynamics. That I can understand.

    Also, space exploration is a vastly complex operation. I can
    understand accidents will happen when we're still less than
    forty years since we landed on the moon.
     

Share This Page