6 ms·

Aerospace Engineering major here. People may be quick to dismiss space travel, and overall innovations and advancements in space technology due to its high cost

Aerospace Engineering major here. People may be quick to dismiss space travel, and overall innovations and advancements in space technology due to its high cost and (seemingly) dangerous tests that companies do to test new technologies. Take the very recent Antares launch failure and Virgin Galactic's tragic crash. But don't dismiss it too soon. There are an astounding amount of safety checks, safety factors, test runs, check runs, and more safety checks before an actual launch or test flight is performed. But these tragedies and tests were experienced in the early stages of within-the-atmosphere flight. While we are still learning about creating a safer and more efficient airliner, we had some bumps and tragedies we had to overcome in the past to get it to where it is now. Take for example the De Havilland Comet aircraft. It was the very first production jet airliner, but within a year of its commercial service, it had tragic accidents that led to 13 crashes with about 440 deaths total. We later learned that the stress in the edges of the square windows compromised the structural integrity of the fuselage which led to catastrophic failure. This is why the windows on your 737, 747, etc are now rounded. But through these tragedies and innovation, we not only gained knowledge on how to build a better aircraft, ticket prices also decreased substantially in price. Space travel right now is right where the air travel industry used to be when it was just starting out: we are still working out the kinks, and to quote Sir Branson, "Space flight is hard, but worth it".

pmoriarty 12y ago
Compare the number of people lost in exploration of space vs exploration of the seas. Of course every person lost is a tragedy, but in sheer numbers there's no comparison. The media blows it completely out of proportion, and people freak out over it while many far worse tragedies (numerically speaking) happen every day without them noticing or caring.
- electromagnetic 12y ago
  Look at the number of people lost every day on the roads: in the US alone that's 92. Look at the number of people who've died during space flights: 18 total; 7 from Challenger and 7 from Columbia, 3 from a decompression in a Soyuz 11 and 1 cosmonaut from a failure in a parachute system. More people die during the "safe" operation of tested equipment like cars, trains, boats, planes and helicopters. The biggest issue in space flight is the inbetween. You're strapping yourself to a rocket that with a very small flaw turns into a bomb, or you're hitting the atmosphere at upwards of Mach 10 and expected to stop in what amounts to about 10m of water (that's the rough measure used for meteorite impacts). By the realities, space flight is extremely safe because we do take so many precautions.
Already__Taken 12y ago
Wasn't that crash investigation a corner stone of the field of metal fatigue? They made a full-size pressure vessel for a test jet and managed to recreate its failure.
Retric 12y ago
In 1961 first man orbits earth. First man walks on the Moon 1969. After that there have arguably been a few milestones, but IMO 'Aerospace' as currently envisioned (vertical takeoff rockets) is simply not practical and effectively we are just wasting time focusing on it. We also spent a lot of money optimizing vacuum tubes and in the end it was almost completely a waste of time. There are actually a lot of far more practical options out there. Air breating craft, electrical propusion to mach 4+ (ed: on land), Space Tether, Launch loop, etc etc. Once your in orbit chemical rockets are also something of a dead end. Pick your Ion drive and pick your power source etc.
- msandford 12y ago
  This comment seems to come from ignorance of basic physics and chemistry rather than an acute awareness of it. The specific energy of the best batteries we have at the moment is only about 2% of that of gasoline. And gasoline isn't that great for a rocket. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities... If you want to talk about taking a jet to mach4, well, now things are starting to get really nuts. Airplanes only work because they can produce lift in excess of their weight. Putting enough batteries on an airplane to make it fly is completely doable; just look at RC airplanes and quadcopters. But getting to mach4 is bonkers at the moment. Drag goes up by speed squared. Doubling your speed quadruples your drag. Of course, air breathing craft to get above most of the atmosphere are totally viable and so are space elevators (maybe not today but in the future) and the launch loop might be feasible too from a basic physics and material science standpoint. Once you're in orbit ion drives still aren't awesome at least for human-scale space exploration, but they become viable.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    There are manned electric planes quite far into development. For example: http://www.gizmag.com/e-fan-airbus-electric-plane/31823/ http://www.gizmag.com/e-fan-airbus-electric-plane/31823/ (I'm just pointing out that they are further along than just RC stuff, not trying to argue that it is significant to space flight)
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
>This is why the windows on your 737, 747, etc are now rounded. This always sounded apocryphal to me, considering ships have had round windows for ages before planes even existed.
- throwaway344 12y ago
  I assume the GP is referring to the De Havilland Comet.
- c0riander 12y ago
  It intrigued me enough to look it up. Here's a photo of those first square windows: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/129764-tech-wrecks-lessons-from-some-of-the-biggest-hardware-screw-ups/3 http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/129764-tech-wrecks-lesson...
- davvolun 12y ago
  It's already been noted but: > A year after entering commercial service the Comets began suffering problems, with three of them breaking up during mid-flight in well-publicised accidents. This was later found to be due to catastrophic metal fatigue in the airframes, not well understood at the time. The Comet was withdrawn from service and extensively tested to discover the cause; the first incident had been incorrectly blamed on adverse weather. Design flaws, including dangerous stresses at the corners of the square windows and installation methodology, were ultimately identified. As a result, the Comet was extensively redesigned with oval windows, structural reinforcement and other changes. Rival manufacturers meanwhile heeded the lessons learned from the Comet while developing their own aircraft. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet] Perhaps (nautical) ships had round windows, but it was for an entirely different reason, and clearly some planes used square windows and found out a good reason not to use square windows.

pmoriarty 12y ago

Compare the number of people lost in exploration of space vs exploration of the seas. Of course every person lost is a tragedy, but in sheer numbers there's no comparison. The media blows it completely out of proportion, and people freak out over it while many far worse tragedies (numerically speaking) happen every day without them noticing or caring.

electromagnetic 12y ago
Look at the number of people lost every day on the roads: in the US alone that's 92. Look at the number of people who've died during space flights: 18 total; 7 from Challenger and 7 from Columbia, 3 from a decompression in a Soyuz 11 and 1 cosmonaut from a failure in a parachute system. More people die during the "safe" operation of tested equipment like cars, trains, boats, planes and helicopters. The biggest issue in space flight is the inbetween. You're strapping yourself to a rocket that with a very small flaw turns into a bomb, or you're hitting the atmosphere at upwards of Mach 10 and expected to stop in what amounts to about 10m of water (that's the rough measure used for meteorite impacts). By the realities, space flight is extremely safe because we do take so many precautions.

Already__Taken 12y ago

Wasn't that crash investigation a corner stone of the field of metal fatigue? They made a full-size pressure vessel for a test jet and managed to recreate its failure.

Retric 12y ago

In 1961 first man orbits earth. First man walks on the Moon 1969. After that there have arguably been a few milestones, but IMO 'Aerospace' as currently envisioned (vertical takeoff rockets) is simply not practical and effectively we are just wasting time focusing on it. We also spent a lot of money optimizing vacuum tubes and in the end it was almost completely a waste of time. There are actually a lot of far more practical options out there. Air breating craft, electrical propusion to mach 4+ (ed: on land), Space Tether, Launch loop, etc etc. Once your in orbit chemical rockets are also something of a dead end. Pick your Ion drive and pick your power source etc.

msandford 12y ago
This comment seems to come from ignorance of basic physics and chemistry rather than an acute awareness of it. The specific energy of the best batteries we have at the moment is only about 2% of that of gasoline. And gasoline isn't that great for a rocket. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities... If you want to talk about taking a jet to mach4, well, now things are starting to get really nuts. Airplanes only work because they can produce lift in excess of their weight. Putting enough batteries on an airplane to make it fly is completely doable; just look at RC airplanes and quadcopters. But getting to mach4 is bonkers at the moment. Drag goes up by speed squared. Doubling your speed quadruples your drag. Of course, air breathing craft to get above most of the atmosphere are totally viable and so are space elevators (maybe not today but in the future) and the launch loop might be feasible too from a basic physics and material science standpoint. Once you're in orbit ion drives still aren't awesome at least for human-scale space exploration, but they become viable.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  There are manned electric planes quite far into development. For example: http://www.gizmag.com/e-fan-airbus-electric-plane/31823/ http://www.gizmag.com/e-fan-airbus-electric-plane/31823/ (I'm just pointing out that they are further along than just RC stuff, not trying to argue that it is significant to space flight)

drzaiusapelord 12y ago

>This is why the windows on your 737, 747, etc are now rounded. This always sounded apocryphal to me, considering ships have had round windows for ages before planes even existed.

throwaway344 12y ago
I assume the GP is referring to the De Havilland Comet.
c0riander 12y ago
It intrigued me enough to look it up. Here's a photo of those first square windows: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/129764-tech-wrecks-lessons-from-some-of-the-biggest-hardware-screw-ups/3 http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/129764-tech-wrecks-lesson...
davvolun 12y ago
It's already been noted but: > A year after entering commercial service the Comets began suffering problems, with three of them breaking up during mid-flight in well-publicised accidents. This was later found to be due to catastrophic metal fatigue in the airframes, not well understood at the time. The Comet was withdrawn from service and extensively tested to discover the cause; the first incident had been incorrectly blamed on adverse weather. Design flaws, including dangerous stresses at the corners of the square windows and installation methodology, were ultimately identified. As a result, the Comet was extensively redesigned with oval windows, structural reinforcement and other changes. Rival manufacturers meanwhile heeded the lessons learned from the Comet while developing their own aircraft. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet] Perhaps (nautical) ships had round windows, but it was for an entirely different reason, and clearly some planes used square windows and found out a good reason not to use square windows.