space: leave it to the machines

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Al Globus wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2003, at 10:08 AM, Ed Minchau
> wrote:
>
> > Neither of these ideas is beyond NASA's current capabilities. For
> > example, the engineers at Michoud designed an Aft Cargo Carrier
for
> > the space shuttle external tank thirty years ago.
>
> Unfortunately, one of my CFD (computational fluid dynamics) friends
who
> worked on this told me that the aft cargo carrier changed the
airflow
> around the system to the point that it's doubtful that it would
ever
> make orbit. This may explain why the project was dropped.
>

Most likely those calculations were done assuming that an orbiter
(shuttle) was attached to the ET. Without the orbiter creating havoc
with the airflow, the results would be much different.

Another explanation for why the ACC idea was dropped: an aft cargo
carrier would do away with the need for the already-purchased
multibillion dollar orbiters, multibillion dollar international space
station, etc. Such considerations as engineering and science fall by
the wayside when they interfere with the path to the public trough.

ed