Don't you think that space shuttle Discovery's (STS-133) external fuel tank problem has been overexagerated?
I also think that safety must always come in first, but in this case, don't you think that they're overexagerating the problem way too much?
You guys sound like congressmen, lol.
- Larry454Lv 79 years agoBest Answer
If you want to take a clinical, objective viewpoint, then I would do what we do in the design of aircraft engines. Every specification for every engine that I have ever worked on has paragraphs devoted to the retention of hardware during flight operations. The FAA clearly requires, and the specification clearly states, that you simply cannot have loose hardware flying around, even during a crash condition. We do expensive tests to make sure that fan blades are not lost, but even if they are lost, they absolutely cannot leave the engine.
Now, I am not familiar with the specification for the Shuttle spacecraft. However, I am reasonably certain that it contains similar wording. Therefore, in this case, the product did not meet the specification. Period. People justifiably lose careers when products do not meet specifications, especially when it results in injury or death. It is not an exaggeration. It is a requirement, plain and simple. You either meet the requirement (and demonstrate that you can meet it) or you do something else. Aerospace engineering is not a picnic, and the dangers are underestimated at the risk of the engineer. That's why engineers are paid.
- DLMLv 79 years ago
Challenger and Columbia victims, and the people close to them might adamantly disagree with you. In both cases, there were voices of, "This might not be safe," that were ignored.
With the track record of the space shuttle, underestimating problems has led to the fatalities of two complete crews. Per passenger, the Shuttle is the most fatal mode of transportation in human history, statistically speaking. Perhaps the concerns are for not, but the astronauts have the expectation that the engineers and mission and shuttle specialists are doing everything in their power to make sure the trip is non-disastrous. And so those "in the know" should be sure that all recognizable problems are dealt with to completion.
- Anonymous9 years ago
A single piece of foam striking a wing during liftoff destroyed Columbia. Dozens of cracks in the foam are no big deal?!? Some of those cracks are caused by underlying cracks in the metal structure of the fuel tank.Source(s): http://www.space.com/columbiatragedy/
- Edward SharpLv 69 years ago
As dangerous as travelling at 17,500 mph is, you think safety is over-exaggerated. Wow!
I guess we needed another Shuttle distaster to make your day.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- petersenLv 43 years ago
linked to the gap return and forth is the massive exterior gas Tank. It provides gas to the main rocket engines on the gap return and forth. It does not have engines of its very own. linked to the two area of the exterior gas tank are the solid Rocket Boosters.
- Alex ELv 79 years ago
Look up Ford Pinto Fuel Tank issues and see if that was overexagerated
The more informed we are, the safer we are. PERIOD.
- AlanLv 79 years ago
Personally I have not seen or measured the cracks in the tank so I cannot comment,
I assume you have !!!