Xah Lee's Unixism
roo at try-removing-this.darkboong.demon.co.uk
Sat Sep 4 16:17:33 EDT 2004
Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>>"Rupert Pigott" <roo at try-removing-this.darkboong.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>>message news:1094285694.404322 at teapot.planet.gong...
>>>Consider this : If the tables were turned and an Aerojet booster
>>>exploded in the sky I'll bet the armchair QBs would be asking why
>>>were Aerojet chosen over Morton-Thiokol who had more experience of
>>>building large solid-fuel rockets.
> However, it would certainly not have failed at the segment joints.#
Indeed, it could have failed in a way entirely unique to itself... :)
The O-Ring thing had been identified, was preventable and should have
been prevented. Sure, perhaps the design did suck, but the point is
the whole disaster was trivially avoidable if the people running the
show were willing to grasp the nettle.
> The more I read sci.space.tech the more convinced I am that the whole
> shuttle concept was fundamentally flawed from the beginning. Putting
> the orbiter next to (rather than on top of) the huge tank of high
> explosive is not a good idea. Reentry from orbit is not the same as
> flying an airplane; ablative heat shields work and work well.
It does seem silly, but it is a glorious piece of brute force design
in the face of impossible odds none the less.
More information about the Python-list