NASA needs to accept casualties

[DarkenedOne]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... 30356.html

Personally I think the safety mantra of NASA is destroying the human space flight program. Like the person in the article stated space exploration and risk aversion do not mix. The simple truth is that exploration has always been and always will be a risky business. If we succumb to the idea that we will not lose anybody than exploration will not occur because that is the only way that is possible.

As I understand it the new standards for man-rated rockets are so high that no existing vehicle including the space shuttle and the Soyuz can meet it. As a result NASA has opted to discard the shuttle early rather than fly it for a few more times until its successor is developed.

Facts are we are going to lose people. That has to be an accepted fact. Just like it is an accepted fact in the military. Hell even in car travel we accept the fact that people are going to die in accidents. Why is exploring the new frontier any different?

What NASA needs to do is set a national sematary where those who have lost their life to space exploration will be honored and remember as heroes. Then not make a big deal every time someone dies.

 

[MeteorWayne]

This is not related to a Mission or a Launch, so will be moved to Space Business and Technology

 

[SpaceForAReason]

I agree that we should not be risk averse. However we cannot approach the next stage of space travel with the same bravado that we did with the x-plane program. We have the means and the opportunity to setup the infrastructure to minimize casualties. Why not do it? Right now the real problem is investment. Our government is not really all that invested in the concept so they think it is cheaper to create monolithic space vehicles without extended infrastructure or support. In reality they are doing exactly what they say they are not doing. They are jeopardizing lives more than anyone cares to admit.

 

[bdewoody]

This is why I believe we need to get a well established routine going to the moon before attempting a gamble to go to Mars. The safety people will make it so hard to get a manned Mars mission approved. The OP is right, we loose 50,000 people annually in the United States alone driving on the highways and yet we still drive our cars as carelessly as ever. But when a manned space mission fails we ground the vehicle for two or three years trying to make it accident proof.

 

[MeteorWayne]

lose! lose! lose! lose!

 

[kelvinzero]

Somehow I cannot see that catching on as our new mantra for space

 

[MeteorWayne]

Sorry, I go nuts once in a while with the most common misspelling on the interwebz.

Loose instead of lose. Over 90% of the time it is written, it is spelled wrong. Makes my brain explode.

has nothing to do with the subject of the thread...

 

[kelvinzero]

Back on topic: a few observations.

These deaths in space are politically much harder to dismiss as a statistic because they are so visible. Deaths in a mars mission even more so. Unlike a shuttle accident, with a mars mission the accident is quite likely to be an engine failure that does not kill them but strands them. Then they spend an entire presidential term dying in a tiny tin can on an orbit that is totally unrecoverable.

It isnt just nervousness on NASA's part. Without a change in attitude by the entire nation, this would be considered unacceptable.

The other problem is that people just do not see space travel as vital the way we see cars and wars as vital, sadly. When people die in space we always ask 'what did they die for'. Most people cannot put their finger on a very clear reason.

My own hobby horse: Im very interested in colonization but manned spaceflight just sucks up all the money that should be going towards technologies that will actually allow us to live there: ISRU technologies, closed cycle life support. small scale manufacturing technologies. self sufficient environmentally neutral communities in difficult environments on earth (such as deserts, Antarctica and the sea floor) and even from developing better access to LEO.

 

[steve82]

Frankly, there isn't much useful in that Augustine report cited in the article. In fact I would say the committee themselves were so averse to the risk of taking a stand for anything, the report is useless.
But back to NASA and risk aversion. The problem is not eliminating risk, the problem is understanding and managing risk. Ideally, risk is an allocated quantifiable parameter applied across a program's elements and managed and traded among the elements like any other margin. One might take a lower risk to launch by using a more robust launch vehicle with less weight carrying ability and trade that against the higher risk of a lighter weight spacecraft made of more exotic materials. Then there's the risk identifying all of the potential problems that you would like your onboard computer to manage weighed against the overall risk of the more complicated software that would be required to run it. You might want to minimize the routine risks of getting up and down from low earth orbit that you are going to do all the time but assume more risk in your lunar landing vehicle. etc.

 

[DarkenedOne]

I agree that we should not be risk averse. However we cannot approach the next stage of space travel with the same bravado that we did with the x-plane program. We have the means and the opportunity to setup the infrastructure to minimize casualties. Why not do it? Right now the real problem is investment. Our government is not really all that invested in the concept so they think it is cheaper to create monolithic space vehicles without extended infrastructure or support. In reality they are doing exactly what they say they are not doing. They are jeopardizing lives more than anyone cares to admit.

I agree with you about infrastructure being better than monolithic vehicles. I think that the problem though is that NASA having built the ISS is turned off to the idea of space infrastructure, so they are reverting to what they know works. It is definitely true that space infrastructure will be needed for any prolonged effort, but I am not sure it is a political possibility at the moment.

 

[DarkenedOne]

This is why I believe we need to get a well established routine going to the moon before attempting a gamble to go to Mars. The safety people will make it so hard to get a manned Mars mission approved. The OP is right, we loose 50,000 people annually in the United States alone driving on the highways and yet we still drive our cars as carelessly as ever. But when a manned space mission fails we ground the vehicle for two or three years trying to make it accident proof.

Exactly

 

[StrandedonEarthsince1970]

Well, I agree that some deaths should be accepted, but what makes that difficult is that a higher PERCENTAGE of space travelers have died than car, plane, or water travelers. No, I admit I haven't actually looked up the numbers, but that is my perception of it.

 

[bdewoody]

lose! lose! lose! lose!

Sorry Wayne, I've been fighting a bladder infection since Thursday and haven't had that much sleep. I lose concentration when I've been up that long.

 

[bdewoody]

By the way, I think we need to engineer the safest vehicles that are both practical and possible. Once we have established a good safety record going to the moon on a regular basis we should have the confidence and experience to build planetary space vehicles that can safely transit to Mars

Having said this I hope that when we do start flying to the planets the occasional accident that is almost certainly bound to happen will not ground the space programs of the various parties involved. Then the tragedy would be the lack of will to go on rather than the loss of a space vehicle and it's crew.

Personally I would fly on any space shuttle mission scheduled if they would let me. I would have even gone on the 1st mission after the loss of Challenger or Columbia. As I remember, in the time leading up to the first shuttle flight, the official line was that they fully expected to lose several shuttles during the life of the program.

 

[MeteorWayne]

That's the real danger, bdewoody.

The first missions will certainly be very risky, and the odds of success not 100%. If the possibility of failure is not built into the expectations, the first failure will end the adventure for decades.

 

[grokme]

There's also the cost of the hardware and the hundreds of thousands of man hours that go into a mission. However, I agree that we cannot affort to NOT do these missions. I was just reading about the Lunar X-Prize and it is so clear that this is the next New World. If we don't get up there and get a presence established, we will be left down here while we watch the mighty new space faring nations grow beyond our capacity to compete.

 

[EarthlingX]

I have a feeling that NASA would be ready to accept casualties, but i'm not so sure about general public.
At the end of the day, NASA can't escape political decisions, being a government agency.
Most political decisions in the near past were about cutting this and that, if possible all over the place, and nobody wants that.

 

[HopDavid]

My own hobby horse: Im very interested in colonization but manned spaceflight just sucks up all the money that should be going towards technologies that will actually allow us to live there: ISRU technologies, closed cycle life support. small scale manufacturing technologies. self sufficient environmentally neutral communities in difficult environments on earth (such as deserts, Antarctica and the sea floor) and even from developing better access to LEO.

Nice to hear someone else with this view.

I believe robotic prospector probes to give us an inventory of available resources is also good preparation for colonization.

The only human space flight I could get behind at this point is a LEO spin grav lab. Learning the minimum gravity we need to stay healthy would be very valuable knowledge.

Apollo style flags and footprints sortie missions are a horrible waste, in my opinion.

 

[grokme]

Apollo style flags and footprints sortie missions are a horrible waste, in my opinion.

What about the moon base by 2020 wasn't it. Doesn't it seem a bit more urgent now that there is lots of water up there? I mean, we might have to go to war with China if we allow them to establish a moon base up there before us, and they cut us out of the deal. Then we can have some "Moon is a Harsh Mistress" style war. Chunking container bombs at those durned Earthsiders.

 

[bdewoody]

Apollo style flags and footprints sortie missions are a horrible waste, in my opinion.

What about the moon base by 2020 wasn't it. Doesn't it seem a bit more urgent now that there is lots of water up there? I mean, we might have to go to war with China if we allow them to establish a moon base up there before us, and they cut us out of the deal. Then we can have some "Moon is a Harsh Mistress" style war. Chunking container bombs at those durned Earthsiders.

This has been the basis of my reasoning to establish bases on the moon before we do any other manned exploration. He who gets to where the water is will have the high ground so to speak. And yes I do believe countries will be staking claims to territory just like when the western hemisphere was discovered by Europeans. Sites where water is relatively abundant will have the greatest value.

And nobody will honor a claim made by a robotic lander or rover.

 

[grokme]

Apollo style flags and footprints sortie missions are a horrible waste, in my opinion.

What about the moon base by 2020 wasn't it. Doesn't it seem a bit more urgent now that there is lots of water up there? I mean, we might have to go to war with China if we allow them to establish a moon base up there before us, and they cut us out of the deal. Then we can have some "Moon is a Harsh Mistress" style war. Chunking container bombs at those durned Earthsiders.

This has been the basis of my reasoning to establish bases on the moon before we do any other manned exploration. He who gets to where the water is will have the high ground so to speak. And yes I do believe countries will be staking claims to territory just like when the western hemisphere was discovered by Europeans. Sites where water is relatively abundant will have the greatest value.

And nobody will honor a claim made by a robotic lander or rover.

My son is considering joining the Air Force, and mentioned that he thought the Air Force would be phased out now that they had all these cool drones. I told him that was absurd. The Air Force will be the Space Force one day, and like you say, they will need boots on the moon. So, I think we have to accept the premise of this thread. We will be accepting casualties if we want to be the ones to settle the moon.