Re: [OT] Re: shuttle disaster
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 10:26:57AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
...
> As much of a fan of "space" science fiction that I am, the pragmatist
> in me must wonder if space planes will ever become practical until
> some new, relatively compact and light-weight, thrust generating energy
> source is invented.
>
> Also, the *incredible* re-enrty speeds and friction will have to some-
> how be ameliorated. (We're all impressed when the SR-71 travels at
> Mach 3 at 26,000 meters, and it's titanium body expands so much to seal
> the fuel tanks, but Columbia was traveling at Mach 17 and the nose of
> the craft was so hot that it turned the atmosphere into plasma!)
>
> And it goes w/o saying that artificial gravity (that can be powered by
> the same enery source that propells the ship) will have to be invented
> so that man's skeletal system won't fall apart during prolonged space
> travel. (Also, imagine how huch easier it would make eating, sleeping,
> shaving, deficating, etc...)
>
> Saddened,
> Ron
Of course, to get there, we have to continue pushing...
(Not suggesting your post implied otherwise, but someone is already shouting
that in this neck of the woods.)
I'm using this in my classes as an example of the scientific process in
action. I keep in the forefront the understanding that it is a terrible
tragedy, but tell the students that they should watch how NASA conducts its
investigation and reports its findings. Their work often stands in contrast
to the media/general public's perceptions and expectations.
Kenward
--
In a completely rational society, the best of us would aspire to be
_teachers_ and the rest of us would have to settle for something less,
because passing civilization along from one generation to the next
ought to be the highest honor and the highest responsibility anyone
could have. - Lee Iacocca
Reply to: