Rocket Scientist

One of those things that drive me nuts when someone from the general public tells me effectively, “Going into space isn’t so hard.”  It’s one of those sure signs they don’t know what they’re talking about.

Yes, we can send spacecraft up and do by the dozens, even hundreds, every year.  Putting anything into space, like an unmanned satellite or interplanetary probe, requires the coordination of a surprisingly large number of very unforgiving processes in a harsh environment, and it must be done as efficiently as possible while weighing as little as possible.

But, it’s a whole other ballgame when you send people.  You might think it’s because you have to protect living things from the harsh environments like temperature and vacuum (though that’s true), because you need systems of much higher complexity than an unmanned spacecraft (though that’s true), because you have to bring considerably more supplies in consumables like air, food and water (though that’s true), or because you can’t just blow it up if something bad happens (though that’s also frowned on).  No, what really makes the difference with manned systems is that they must come back.  I can’t stress how much difference this makes.

Going up, you have a full load of propellant and, if something goes wrong, you can come back before you leave the atmosphere, sporty, challenging, but workable.  Coming back, you’re probably running dry (no propellant), which means, if something goes wrong, too bad.  You’re committed.  Gravity is not forgiving.  It means you have to undo all that speed you put on going up, and much of that will be via friction (because propellant is expensive), so it will get hot.  Very hot.

Today, I was reading spacedaily.com .  In fact, I read it daily and recommend anyone who likes space to do the same.  Today, one of my favorite editorialists, Jeffrey Bell , had an article.  I like Jeffrey Bell because he’s smart, he’s practical and he doesn’t pull punches.  In this article , he was talking about the ill-fated Dyna-Soar (X-20) that some still drool over as the coulda been.  And he tells us why it’s really a never was and for good reason.  Really, I’ve been working in this business for nearly 20 years and I learned something, so I’d recommend spaceheads to read it with an open mind because a willingness to objectively examine our failures is the best way to keep from repeating them.  He’s got a great article also examining the exploration program.

If commercial spaceflight wants to be successful, they should be taking notes as well.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS