I think two crashes in a 17 year period is a pretty decent safety record. I think they should just assume that problems are likely to occur after about 90 flights. After 90 flights, they could donate the shutttle to a space museum or something.
I agree. I think it's a pretty good track record too. I do think that research should continue regarding alternative means to achieve LEO (low earth orbit) in human-piloted craft such as RLV (reusable launch vehicles) and this is a great thing that the xprize is helping to propel.
But there's all this chatter about "are humans ready for space travel" and "do we have any business being their if we don't have our crap together"? Give me a break. More people die in automobiles every hour of every day. Perhaps cars should be taken away from people, thus reducing/eliminating our dependence upon foreign oil and putting an end to current affairs in the East. Ridiculous, right? Indeed.
The shuttle program has little to do with travelling the cosmos. It's a service and low-gravity research delivery vehicle, nothing more. I think it was the movie Airplane 2 that portrayed the shuttle landing on a moon base - that doesn't happen. If the shuttle ever left orbit it'd be doomed. As an orbital vehicle, it and it alone has the capability of docking with space stations, capturing and repairing, refueling, whatevering satellites, etc. Sure, we could still deliver satellites with conventional rocket delivery, but there are some things that just cannot be accomplished by relying solely on this method.
Death is part of life. It happens, always has and always will. The unfortunate premature deaths of some astronauts in the line of duty, while heart-wrenching to those who care about them and sympathizers, is by no means justification to end a program that has enjoyed phenomenal success over the decades and has positioned this country as a leader in space technology and exploration.
Anyway, as a long term goal, I think there defintely should be a program established to replace the shuttle over time. Something based on RLV technology. Something that can perform the functions of today's shuttle, and service the needs of tomorrow's space tourism. Commercializing space exploration is the key to making it a reality.
I believe the shuttle program should go on. We do need a better orbitor that is cost effective and has fewer safety risks. Right now if something goes wrong on lift off or if the shuttle is struck by orbiting debri or a micro metorite in the wrong place it's over. I agree that two disasters over a 17 year period is a good track record yet the reasons for these two to me are unacceptable. We should have a perfect record with the shuttle right now. Human error in flight to me is more acceptable than NASA managers penny pinching or becoming over confident simply because things usually don't go wrong has to be eliminated. Because of that we have billions of dollars worth of shuttles sitting idle on the ground and billions more wasting away in orbit. The INSS was designed to house several astronauts and have more thn one vehicle docked at a time if needed. Saving money and sticking their head in the sand has brought on the very problems and expenses they were hoping to avoid.
I would like to quote John Glenn on a statement he made after the shuttle Challenger disaster for this subject...
"If anybody had told me back in the days of Project Mercury that we would go all these years, dealing with all these complexities of space travel, and would have only one (now two) failure(s), I'd have thought that was wishful thinking."
The same Creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today. The crew of the shuttle Columbia did not return safely to Earth; yet we can pray that all are safely home. -G.W. Bush
Space travel is a risky business I understand that and it does not take much for something to go wrong with catastrophic consequenses. What bothers me is that Both of these failures were because of poor management, putting dollars before human life and a gross overconfidence. If a shuttle was struck by a meteor or some other cosmic event that is an understandable accepted risk. If a problem arose that had never been seen before that too would be acceptable. These two problems were reoccuring problems. The o rings had partially burned through before and folks at MartinThiokel had warned nasa not to launch under extremly cold conditions but they did anyway. Foam debris had struck the shuttle on three prior occasions and had concerned the ground crew in the past so much so that they slightly altered the re entry trajectory in an effort to keep the effected area less exposed to the heat and stress of re entry. It's knowing there is a problem and crossing their fingers is what is unacceptable.
02-04-2003 07:54 AM
