Is the space shuttle too risky to use?

bdewoody · Jun 29, 2006

What if we had this mind set back at the beginning of manned flight. Everything we do is risky. I don't advocate being careless when it comes to space flight but a line has to be drawn somewhere. Back in the early days of jet flight planes and pilots were lost on a weekly basis and if they had suspended all flights until all safety issues were addressed we'd still be flying around in DC-7s. It seems we live in a generation that expects every aspect of life to be risk free. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Bob DeWoody </div>

askold · Jun 29, 2006

Accepting risk is normal, but not flying around in a flawed vehicle: Griffin has made clear in previous statements that he regards the shuttle and space station as misguided. He told the Senate earlier this year that the shuttle was "inherently flawed" and that the space station was not worth "the expense, the risk and the difficulty" of flying humans to space. Would you get on a 747 if the president of Boeing said the 747 design was flawed?

radarredux · Jun 29, 2006

> It seems we live in a generation that expects every aspect of life to be risk free./i> In general, I agree that we live in a generation that is too cautious (not to mention litigious). However, I think there are at least two main issues. First, does the reward justify the risk? Many, including Griffin, have said that going around endlessly in low Earth orbit does not provide enough value to risk our lives. Second, is there an alternative, less risky approach to accomplishing the same task? Once again many, including Griffin, say "yes". By separating crew from cargo, moving crew away from potential falling debris, simplifying the system, and creating escape options through more of the flight path, Griffin and others claim that loss of life with the ESAS approach is much less than that of the Shuttle approach.

bdewoody · Jun 29, 2006

The 747 and every other vehicle we use are flawed in some way or another. 40,000+ traffic fatalities in the USA every year since the late 1940s, but we still drive cars to do stupid things like go down to the 7/11 to get a pack of smokes. I can see where unless we get motivated by the thought of the Chinese or Japanese bases on the moon the US will give up manned space exploration. It isn't ever going to be safe. Sure we're taking small steps now but without them how are we ever going to make big steps? We can just sit here and put our heads in the sand until some big rock with our names on it plows into earth and then a few million years from now the next species to get this far will have to make a choice. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Bob DeWoody </div>

scottb50 · Jun 29, 2006

The Shuttle makes a 747 look like a Piper Cub in terms of complexity. I also don't think it's all that risky sure there are thousands more things to go wrong than on a 747 but based on the total number of launches it's been extremely reliable. I think the odds of a successful mission are a lot higher than failure. That Space flight requires huge amounts of energy to achieve implies more risk. Except if you use the 747 example the engines it uses are a lot more reliable and safer than earlier engines while being much more powerful. The same thing can happen with rocket engines, eventually they could be as reliable as your Chevy. Shuttle is only the fourth generation, by eight or nine getting to Space should become easier, safer and cheaper. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

rogers_buck · Jun 30, 2006

Its a case of risk vs reward. If Nasa were to jerk the manned rating and automate the final landing (gear drop), they could simply put another 3 astronauts on the ISS with a Soyuz launch. The Soyuz could undock from the ISS and fairy a two person docking crew to the shuttle for docking with the ISS. The shuttle could then be routed to a fully automated landing that wouldn't take it over any population centers. The shuttles could be turned around faster sans manned rating. The extra ISS crew onboard the station could busy themselves doing research between deliveries. If Nasa had taken this approach 2 years ago they would have saved billions as opposed to the cost of a few Soyuz flights. The stats say they could fly the remaining missions without loosing a vehicle, but if they did, one less for the museums - no big deal. I really wish someone would put me out of my misery and tell me why an unmanned approach is a dumb idea!

qso1 · Jun 30, 2006

IMO, no. The shuttle has served well over its lifetime. Risky yes, as any controlled bomb would be. Too risky, not considering the degree to which we can control those flying bombs called rockets. Drawing the line has pretty much occured, recognizing that while the shuttle may not be too risky, were down to three orbiters and its time to move on to another mode of travel while were still ahead which NASA is in the process of doing as best it can considering the budgets it gets. The worst that can be said of shuttle as a whole is that it failed to live up to the economic promise made for it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

askold · Jun 30, 2006

"NASA is in the process of doing as best it can considering the budgets it gets." Poor NASA - it only gets $16B. That's to fly a shuttle every year or two. The FBI gets 1/3 of that - to protect the whole country!

qso1 · Jun 30, 2006

askold: Poor NASA - it only gets $16B. That's to fly a shuttle every year or two. The FBI gets 1/3 of that - to protect the whole country! Me: Don't forget the $400 billion we waste on deficit spending each year. Bet the FBI would love to have that money. Silly me, lest cut NASA out completely, I didn't realize we cut deficit spending by a whopping 25 days, my bad! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

erioladastra · Jun 30, 2006

"Poor NASA - it only gets $16B. That's to fly a shuttle every year or two." Let's not get absurd. You might actually recall that NASA launches unamanned probes, operates satellites like HST and supports ISS 24/7. Oh, and last time I checked there was a whole section devoted to aviation. These may be smaller pieces but they add up to a significant portion of the $16B budget.

frodo1008 · Jun 30, 2006

Askold is not interested in the manned programs safety, he wants to gut the manned space program entirely so he isn't going to accept ANY risk. He stated this in the very first thread that he made, and I have seen absolutely NO evidense from him that he has changed his mind at all. Why somebody like this even posts on a space oriented site is quite beyond my thinking! Most of us here that support NASA, the space shuttle, and ISS, are well aware of their imperfections. No endeavour as complex as placing objects (robotic or human) into space is ever going to be anywhere near perfectly safe, the energy requirements to do so are just too great. Those of us that support these efforts are well aware of this (and the astronauts and their families are even more aware), we, like the astronauts consider efforts in this direction to be more important, that is all. As to NASA's budget, during the period that most on these boards believe the greatest progress in these areas was made NASA recieved up to some 4% of the federal budget. Now is gets some 0.6% of the budget, yet people such as askold still expect NASA to be able to do the same things that we did when the budget was 4 %, and THEN complain that it is still too much!!! I sometimes think that we really do deserve to have the rest of the world pass us by here! Luckily it now seems as if even congress has started to see the truth of this, and NASA is getting at least some help. Not much, or certainly not enough, but at least it is moving in the right direction. Perhaps if people want to find a scapegoat for the deficit, then maybe they should look at a war in Iraq that is costing some $200 billion per year. If NASA's $16 billion were increase to $20 it would STILL only be 10% of that! A war that we are no closer to winning now than we were in Viet Nahm in the 1960's and 1970's! Heck, congress is even trying to hide the true costs (monetarily at least, if not in blood) by passing "

askold · Jun 30, 2006

OK - just $7B for the shuttle and ISS. Still 1 1/2 times the budget of the FBI. Sure this is a lot less than the national debt, the cost of the Iraq war and the contents of Bill Gates checking account. But so what - it's still a lot of money for little result.

crix · Jun 30, 2006

Well said.

qso1 · Jun 30, 2006

Bottom line is this. The idea of cutting NASA to free funds for something worthy is a false argument. It has been for three decades. IMO, you simply want to see an end to human space flight and thats fine by me but don't base your desire to see an end to NASA on a false argument. Do you really think the government will take money saved on NASA and put it to something that would benefit taxpayers when they can't bring a $400 plus billion dollar deficit under control? Better yet, when we had surplus budgets a few years back, why didn't the gov pump a few billion of that into the FBI? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · Jul 1, 2006

Possible but if so, we need to get the deficit way down to a more manageable level before looking at cutting NASA. To state it the way Ross Perot might: "Ya got a lit match on the sidewalk and a fire burning a house down, which one do ya put out first?" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

pathfinder_01 · Jul 1, 2006

simply put another 3 astronauts on the ISS with a Soyuz launch. The Soyuz could undock from the ISS and fairy a two person docking crew to the shuttle for docking with the ISS. The shuttle could then be routed to a fully automated landing that wouldn't take it over any population centers. The shuttles could be turned around faster sans manned rating. The extra ISS crew onboard the station could busy themselves doing research between deliveries. If Nasa had taken this approach 2 years ago they would have saved billions as opposed to the cost of a few Soyuz flights. The stats say they could fly the remaining missions without loosing a vehicle, but if they did, one less for the museums - no big deal. I really wish someone would put me out of my misery and tell me why an unmanned approach is a dumb idea!” I would question it. An automated docking ability is not a bad idea. The problem is in the time it would take to develop it. The shuttle is scheduled to retire and hardware is sitting on the ground while other hardware is waiting in orbit. If automated docking had been developed BEFORE the ISS assembly started then this would be a useful ability. The problem now is the time crunch. I hope NASA develops this ability for the CEV. I also doubt that you could turn around the shuttle faster sans man ratting. The only thing the crew needs are supplies. If any part fails like oh the adhesive holding a critical section of tile or a crack in the engine you will very likely loss the orbiter and there are none in production and only three remaining. If the orbiter was still in production, then a loss might be dealable but at the moment a loss is critical. And even if you fly unmanned you will very likely need to do just as much inspection/refurbishment as before.

willpittenger · Jul 1, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I hope NASA develops this ability for the CEV.<hr /></blockquote> Pilot and Commander astronauts would fight it tooth and nail. However, it might be a good idea to have a cheaper smaller version. The Russians have Soyuz and Progress. Since CEVs have very little reusability in the actual spacecraft, skip the stuff you need to support the crew. That lightens the vehicle and makes for more room. If you are not going to use it to return stuff all the way to the surface for reuse, you do not need reentry either. The cheapest way to do this is to canabilize the Russian system used for Progress. You probably would end up with a more modern version of Progress that must dock with the Russian side, but it is cheap. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />And even if you fly [STS orbiters] unmanned you will very likely need to do just as much inspection/refurbishment as before.<hr /></blockquote> Actually, you could probably skip the stuff concerning the survival of the crew. There might also be new items since the crew will not be able to perform certain tasks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

crossovermaniac · Jul 1, 2006

OK - just $7B for the shuttle and ISS. Still 1 1/2 times the budget of the FBI. Sure this is a lot less than the national debt, the cost of the Iraq war and the contents of Bill Gates checking account. But so what - it's still a lot of money for little result. So is public education. So, let's gut that wasted program too.

crossovermaniac · Jul 1, 2006

I really wish someone would put me out of my misery and tell me why an unmanned approach is a dumb idea! Because it would look bad for the US if they couldn't put a crew on their manned semi-reusuable boondoggle. That and it would be the smart thing to do.

qso1 · Jul 1, 2006

pathfinder_01: I really wish someone would put me out of my misery and tell me why an unmanned approach is a dumb idea!” Me: The idea of an unmanned approach is not necessarily a dumb one. What has to be looked at is what gets weighed into the decision to go manned or unmanned and in shuttles case. It would look dumber yet if it malfunctioned while automatically docked with ISS and damaged or destroyed the station. Not that the shuttle would but NASA generally avoids putting the shuttle at risk, especially if a human crew can make the difference in a successful docking as opposed to being able to do nothing as they watch from ISS while the automatic system malfunctions and a collision occurs. A docking accident could occur with a crew on board as well but with the crew in addition to any automatic capability, you have reduced the risk of a potential accident. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · Jul 1, 2006

erioladastra: Let's not get absurd. You might actually recall that NASA launches unamanned probes, operates satellites like HST... Me: Good point and one I would have made to askhold if I thought he had even a tiny interest in manned spaceflight but he don't and thats his perogative. If we spend the equivalent of the FBI budget on NASA, he'd still say its a waste while ignoring the far larger waste in government that proves cutting NASAs budget would do nothing to help the FBI, cure disease, end poverty or any other cause one might wish to save the money for. The government had the opportunity to do this at Apollos end and did nothing but business as usual which proves the elimination of NASA is a false argument. An example, can anyone recall a speech from Nixon or Ford saying something like "My fellow Americans, we have accomplished our goal of going to the moon and will now outline our plans to take the NASA budget cuts recently approved. First, we will use these savings to..." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

earth_bound_misfit · Jul 1, 2006

"Is the space shuttle too risky to use?" Only if your a wimp. I would give my left nut for a ride on STS, and I'm sure there would be plenty of other takers on here as well <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?Go here to see how: SDC Eye saver </div>

j05h · Jul 1, 2006

> Only if your a wimp. I would give my left nut for a ride on STS, and I'm sure there would be plenty of other takers on here as well Sure, most of us would go,given the opportunity. The problem is that we will never experience that. The Shuttle, and any other NASA vehicles, won't carry civilians, for free or pay (unless you're a Saudi Prince or Barfin' Jake Garn). We as civilians can pay good old Dollars to fly via Soyuz and soon (hopefully) a US commercial capsule. Go SpaceX! The question shouldn't be "would you ride the Shuttle" but "Would you be allowed to ride Shuttle?" To the original point, I don't think STS is to risky, but the flights have got to mean something. The tragedy of Columbia was that they were doing make-work on that flight: it was one of the last non-assembly flights. I understand why we'd want to study nematode behavior in free-fall, but we sacrificed 7 people to do it. Were the worms worth it? For ISS, some of the payloads could absolutely be adapted to fly on EELV, it's NASA's intrasigence that prevented that from happening over the last 20 years, and we have a half-built station to prove it. If they had built launcher-neutral payloads or planned on Delta/Atlas from the start, Station would be done and operational. I'm offtopic and ranting and will leave it at that. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

willpittenger · Jul 1, 2006

Columbia was not capable of docking with the station. So what else do you use it for? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

qso1 · Jul 1, 2006

Prior to the accident, it was used for non-station related work. It was on just such a mission when it was lost on re-entry. A couple of examples, STS-109 was a Columbia Hubble servicing mission in 2002. Columbia deployed Chandra X=ray telesope on STS-93 in 1999. STS-90 in 1998, Columbia flew the last Spacelab mission. Columbia did not see many flights once ISS assembly began but it did fly non-ISS missions when required. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

Is the space shuttle too risky to use?

bdewoody

Guest

askold

Guest

radarredux

Guest

bdewoody

Guest

scottb50

Guest

rogers_buck

Guest

qso1

Guest

askold

Guest

qso1

Guest

erioladastra

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

askold

Guest

crix

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

pathfinder_01

Guest

willpittenger

Guest

crossovermaniac

Guest

crossovermaniac

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

earth_bound_misfit

Guest

j05h

Guest

willpittenger

Guest

qso1

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page