Shuttle Program is NASA's Vietnam; Unworkable (Homer Hickam article)

The following is a synopsis of a great article "Not Culture but
Perhaps a Cult" written by Homer Hickam, author of Rocket Boys, with
the interesting points, IMO, marked with *** and a paragraph excerpt
underneath it in parentheses. The whole article is online he
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=855 and a shorter
version appeared in the WSJ.
------------
***the Space Shuttle Program may well be NASA's Vietnam:
(A generation of engineers and managers have exhausted themselves
trying to make it work and they just can't. But why not? I believe it
is because the Shuttle's engineering design, just as Vietnam's
political design, is inherently flawed.)

***a crew sitting in the most vulnerable position possible in terms of
engineering design and safety:
(...the Shuttle has to sit right in the middle of all the turmoil of
launch because we once believed it would be cheaper to bring back
those engines and rebuild them than to build new ones. That has not
proved to be the case-far from it-but it has left us with a crew
sitting in the most vulnerable position possible in terms of
engineering design and safety. Simply put, had that spaceplane been on
top of the stack, the destruction of Columbia would not have occurred
because its wings would have been out of the line of fire.)

***[using hydrogen fuel] scares a lot of NASA engineers to death:
(...the Shuttle uses hydrogen fuel, the most difficult, cranky fuel
there is. Hydrogen is the smallest atom in the universe and leaks
through molecule-sized pinholes. When it gathers in an enclosed space
(such as under the shuttle stack on the pad), it's a bomb waiting to
go off. Hydrogen leakages grounded the Shuttles for three months
before Columbia was launched and scares a lot of NASA engineers to
death. )

***The heart of every NASA engineer suffers today in this icy truth:
the Space Shuttle is an inherently flawed design and will destroy
American human spaceflight if we don't get it behind us.
---------------------
Hickam's conclusion is to fly the shuttle approx. 8 more times to
finish Space Station and then replace it with new space plane,
designed to sit on the tip-top of the launcher.
(You must read his book Rocket Boys if you haven't yet. It's also a
movie called October Sky. Both are v. good)

(ElleninLosAngeles) wrote:

The following is a synopsis of a great article "Not Culture but
Perhaps a Cult" written by Homer Hickam, author of Rocket Boys, with
the interesting points, IMO, marked with *** and a paragraph excerpt
underneath it in parentheses. The whole article is online he
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=855 and a shorter
version appeared in the WSJ.

Great? Nope. It's the old hands circling wagons against reality the
same way Kraft did in his report on privatizing the Shuttle and
Stafford did in his report on MIR safety.

Rand has some good comments on this he

http://www.interglobal.org/weblog/ar...11.html#003011

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

(Derek Lyons) wrote

Great? Nope. It's the old hands circling wagons against reality the
same way Kraft did in his report on privatizing the Shuttle and
Stafford did in his report on MIR safety.


What are you talking about? "Hands circling wagons?" The article has
nothing to do with privatization.

"ElleninLosAngeles" wrote in message

The following is a synopsis of a great article "Not Culture but
Perhaps a Cult" written by Homer Hickam, author of Rocket Boys, with
...
engineering design and safety. Simply put, had that spaceplane been on
top of the stack, the destruction of Columbia would not have occurred
because its wings would have been out of the line of fire.)

.... and the vehicle would have been uncontrollable (the "fins" go in
*back*).

And, the ET would have had to have been *considerably* beefed up - both
because of the new weight sitting atop it (more of a concern), as well as
the engines now needing to be placed below the ET (less of a concern).
Imagine a 230K orbiter atop a nearly empty tank at 3 g's acceleration. To
me, that seems unsound (can any structural guys here comment?).

I don't see the foam shedding and impact risk problem as a showstopper - it
could have and should have been fixed long ago.

***The heart of every NASA engineer suffers today in this icy truth:
the Space Shuttle is an inherently flawed design and will destroy
American human spaceflight if we don't get it behind us.

Disagree, and this is an exaggeration he cannot support.

Hickam's conclusion is to fly the shuttle approx. 8 more times to
finish Space Station and then replace it with new space plane,
designed to sit on the tip-top of the launcher.
(You must read his book Rocket Boys if you haven't yet. It's also a
movie called October Sky. Both are v. good)

The movie was good. I'd have expected a better piece than this from him.

Jon

... and the vehicle would have been uncontrollable (the "fins" go in
*back*).
I don't know what you mean by this - what are the fins you are
referring to? In the back meaning where? Did you mean the shuttle
wings sticking out on top of the stack and causing weird airflows?

***The heart of every NASA engineer suffers today in this icy truth:
the Space Shuttle is an inherently flawed design and will destroy
American human spaceflight if we don't get it behind us.

Disagree, and this is an exaggeration he cannot support.

If he'd said the shuttle is outdated technology that is bringing the
NASA program down with it? (all the $ getting thrown at the shuttle
program and spaceplane ideas getting scrapped)

(ElleninLosAngeles) wrote:

(Derek Lyons) wrote

Great? Nope. It's the old hands circling wagons against reality the
same way Kraft did in his report on privatizing the Shuttle and
Stafford did in his report on MIR safety.


What are you talking about? "Hands circling wagons?" The article has
nothing to do with privatization.

No the article doesn't have anything to do with privatization.
However it has everything to do with old NASA hands hewing to the
party line and political winds.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

From Jon Berndt:
"ElleninLosAngeles" wrote in message

The following is a synopsis of a great article "Not Culture but
Perhaps a Cult" written by Homer Hickam, author of Rocket Boys, with
...
engineering design and safety. Simply put, had that spaceplane been on
top of the stack, the destruction of Columbia would not have occurred
because its wings would have been out of the line of fire.)

... and the vehicle would have been uncontrollable (the "fins" go in
*back*).

And, the ET would have had to have been *considerably* beefed up - both
because of the new weight sitting atop it (more of a concern), as well as
the engines now needing to be placed below the ET (less of a concern).
Imagine a 230K orbiter atop a nearly empty tank at 3 g's acceleration. To
me, that seems unsound (can any structural guys here comment?).

I don't see the foam shedding and impact risk problem as a showstopper - it
could have and should have been fixed long ago.

***The heart of every NASA engineer suffers today in this icy truth:
the Space Shuttle is an inherently flawed design and will destroy
American human spaceflight if we don't get it behind us.

Disagree, and this is an exaggeration he cannot support.

Hickam's conclusion is to fly the shuttle approx. 8 more times to
finish Space Station and then replace it with new space plane,
designed to sit on the tip-top of the launcher.
(You must read his book Rocket Boys if you haven't yet. It's also a
movie called October Sky. Both are v. good)

The movie was good. I'd have expected a better piece than this from him.

I totally agree with you, Jon. The shuttle has an outstanding record
for success when operated within key safety parameters.

If the shuttle is NASA's Vietnam, then I'd like to hear Homer explain
why he "volunteered for so many tours of service". The bio from his
own website explains how he supported the program from 1981-98:

http://www.homerhickam.com/bio.htm

....with no hint of being a "protester" (let alone a NASA "draft
dodger"). But now after reading his article I can picture him at a
rally burning a NASA flag, with his Silver Snoopy pinned to it!

(Visualize the scene of Homer surrounded by dozens of CBers forming a
picket line at KSC gate for RTF chanting, "Hell no, we won't go ...")


~ CT

"ElleninLosAngeles" wrote in message

... and the vehicle would have been uncontrollable (the "fins" go in
*back*).

I don't know what you mean by this - what are the fins you are
referring to? In the back meaning where? Did you mean the shuttle
wings sticking out on top of the stack and causing weird airflows?

Yes. I was being figurative, not literal. Sticking something like the
shuttle on top of the ET/SRB is completely unworkable from a controllability
standpoint, and I strongly suspect from a structural one, as well. It is
entirely possible that Homer was not truly recommending sticking the
*current* shuttle atop the *current* ET/SRB, but it read to me like he was
suggesting the current shuttle should be atop the ET.

***The heart of every NASA engineer suffers today in this icy truth:
the Space Shuttle is an inherently flawed design and will destroy
American human spaceflight if we don't get it behind us.

Disagree, and this is an exaggeration he cannot support.

If he'd said the shuttle is outdated technology that is bringing the
NASA program down with it? (all the $ getting thrown at the shuttle
program and spaceplane ideas getting scrapped)

That's a lot to address! The shuttle is expensive to fly, that's for sure.
But, I had thought I read that Monday's Titan IV launch cost $500 million.
Big payloads seem to cost big money, up to now. Eventually, the new Atlas
and Delta vehicles will do far better for large payloads on a $/lb. basis.
I made a chart of launch costs vs. payload capability he

http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/Launch_Costs.pdf

This chart was based on the info I could find, but I wouldn't place any
orders based on what is presented there. ;-) If anyone finds anything is
grossly out of whack, let me know, so I can get it "back in whack" (isn't
that a song?).

(BTW, there are some pretty good pictures of a Titan launch he
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/prog...unch/titan.htm
scroll to bottom)

The question is, what is the right tool for the job - and for that matter,
what is the "job"? The shuttle is right for building station (acknowledging
here that there are those who think the station is a wrong goal), given its
unique capabilities. My own personal feeling is that we ought to finish ISS
(out to its original configuration - past "core complete"), fully staff it,
and do research applicable to lunar and Mars missions. Once ISS construction
is complete, phase out shuttle and replace it with a "form follows function"
capsule that would serve as a taxi from earth to ISS - and perhaps to lunar
orbit.

Jon

"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
I totally agree with you, Jon. The shuttle has an outstanding record
for success when operated within key safety parameters.

If the shuttle is NASA's Vietnam, then I'd like to hear Homer explain
why he "volunteered for so many tours of service". The bio from his
own website explains how he supported the program from 1981-98:

http://www.homerhickam.com/bio.htm

...with no hint of being a "protester" (let alone a NASA "draft
dodger"). But now after reading his article I can picture him at a
rally burning a NASA flag, with his Silver Snoopy pinned to it!

(Visualize the scene of Homer surrounded by dozens of CBers forming a
picket line at KSC gate for RTF chanting, "Hell no, we won't go ...")


~ CT

I read Mr. Hickam's autobiography, "Rocket Boys." One thing that became
clear to me about Mr. Hickam - in the book - is that he was a young man who
was fascinated by - actually, nearly obsessed with - America's manned space
program. He had no greater desire in his life to be involved with that
program, and was fortunate in that he was able to fulfuil his dream.

Frankly, if you want to be involved in the U. S. manned space program, there
is no other place to go than NASA. It isn't as though he could just go work
for another agency or company. If you want to help send people into space,
and you live in America, you work for NASA, and you work with the shuttle.

I would bet that the reason Hickam stayed with NASA for so long is because
he loved his job. But I don't see why that should stand at odds with the
apparent fact that he thought the spacecraft he was working with could have
or should have been designed differently. It's pretty certain that he never
formally protested the design while working for NASA, because he probably
wouldn't have lasted long there if he did, but we don't know whether or not
he felt the the design was poor while he was there. Maybe he did. Now that
he doesn't have to worry about losing his job for saying so, he's saying so.

Ultimately, this isn't a personal issue. The shuttle is an amazing feat of
engineering, but it's still just a machine. Hickam isn't the first person
to ever say that a machine could or should be built differently. He was
just voicing his opinion, and he has the right to do so.

That, for what it's worth, is my opinion.

D. Carolan

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message ...
Sticking something like the
shuttle on top of the ET/SRB is completely unworkable from a controllability
standpoint, and I strongly suspect from a structural one, as well.

Probably. But weren't a bunch of the low-cost original shuttle designs
effectively just a winged shuttle on top of a fuel tank with engines?

Or is this why those designs were abandoned ?

Mark