Shuttle a deathtrap, says astronaut

arenean · Jan 23, 2006

This from "The Observer" newspaper..... Shuttle a deathtrap, says astronaut Robin McKie, science editor Sunday January 22, 2006 The Observer One of America's most experienced astronauts has denounced the space shuttle as a deathtrap and accused US space officials of stifling all concerns raised about its safety. The revelation comes as America prepares to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Challenger disaster. Seven astronauts were killed on 28 January 1986, when their shuttle exploded 73 seconds after take-off. Veteran astronaut Mike Mullane's outburst therefore comes at a deeply embarrassing time for the Nasa. Apart from dealing with the Challenger anniversary, it is now struggling to save its remaining space shuttles so they can complete the international space station. However, all three - Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour - are still grounded because engineers have not yet fixed insulation problems that doomed Challenger's sister craft, Columbia, in 2003. 'It's the most dangerous manned spacecraft ever flown,' said Mullane, who took part on three shuttle missions before retiring in 1990. 'It has no powered-flight escape system... Basically the bail-out system we have on the shuttle is the same bail-out system a B-17 bomber pilot had in World War II.' It was this lack of ejector seats that ensured the deaths of Challenger's astronauts. Such a powered escape system could have blasted them from their stricken ship and saved them. 'That was the true tragedy of Challenger. Nothing was learnt. Only janitors and cafeteria workers at Nasa were blameless in the deaths of the Challenger seven,' said Mullane. 'Columbia was a repeat of Challenger, where people had a known design problem and launched anyway.' Mullane added that astronauts deserved some share of responsibility for not pursuing safety issues more doggedly. It is estimated that it now costs Nasa $5bn a year to pay f

tap_sa · Jan 23, 2006

Three simple steps for ex-NASA astronaut: 1. Write a book calling Shuttle a deathtrap 2. ??? 3. Profit!

nacnud · Jan 23, 2006

2 - <s>Advertize</s> Write opinion peice for science iliterate paper.

rfoshaug · Jan 23, 2006

Although he does have a point about the lack of an in-flight escape system, I think it's very illoyal of him to say this now. It's obvious that he says this now because NASA has no shuttles flying, it's 20 years since Challenger, and he has a new book he wants to sell. The lack of an escape system apparently didn't prevent him from flying the shuttle twice after the Challenger accident. According to NASA's website, he was a mission specialist on the crew of STS-41D (August 30 to September 5, 1984), STS-27 (December 2-6, 1988), and STS-36 in (February 28 to March 4, 1990). Two of these missions were after the Challenger accident. He knew the risks then, and accepted them. I find it strange that it is only now, after his retirement as an astronaut and when he's just written a book he wants to sell, that he starts calling the Space Shuttle a "death trap". I also wonder what The Observer paid him. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----------------------------------My minds have many opinions </div>

nolirogari · Jan 23, 2006

Actually from a publishing standpoint, it's a smart marketing move... classless but smart. By shouting the shuttle deathtrap line the book sells to the anti-space anti-NASA crowd, but the astro-space junkies will still buy it just because the guy's an exastronaut. The publisher gets his fingers into two different and opposing markets in one shot. Remember, most publishers are like drug dealers- they don't care a bit about anything except making cash from what they feed you. To my taste, however, I'd say if you want to buy a book written by a ticked off astro... read Cunningham's "All American Boys"

CalliArcale · Jan 23, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />One of America's most experienced astronauts<hr /></blockquote> looked him up. He's got three flights to his credit, for a total of 356 hours. His flights were STS-41D, STS-27, and STS-36, on Discovery and Atlantis. He retired in 1990 to start a career as a writer and public speaker. He was a mission specialist on STS-41D; the other two flights were classified DoD programs. [Remainder of post retracted. I did what I always said I wouldn't do -- I failed to look beyond the news article to see whether they were reporting his words faithfully and in correct context. They weren't.] <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

vogon13 · Jan 23, 2006

The defense contractor I formerly worked for built the auxillary power units used on the orbiters and the solid boosters and I handled RA-9, RA-10 reports on those units. Virtually the last telemetry retrieved from Columbia indicated the APUs were still running. I am highly offended by Mulane's characterization. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

ace5 · Jan 23, 2006

And, why didn´t he voice his concerns about shuttle being a trap when he was an active astronaut? Every astronaut that rides a shuttle knows how risky the vehicle is. This doesnt prevent any from flying it, with only two losts in more than 100 flights. He is being, at least, unloyal to his profession.

vt_hokie · Jan 23, 2006

This reminds me of a website I came across a few years ago (now updated, I see). This ex-NASA engineer had some ideas for crew emergency egress systems. http://www.nasaproblems.com/

trailrider · Jan 23, 2006

There is no question that the Shuttle (or any other rocket-powered launch vehicle) is potentially dangerous in MANY respects! There is also NO QUESTION that NASA management has messed up by disregarding warnings by it engineers and those of the contractors & subcontractors that there were problems with the Shuttle system. These are facts, whether we like it or not! Hopefully, the insulation problems can be solved before flying more missions, but there is a certain amount of risk involved in any aerospace craft, even with escape systems. The late Gen. Albert Boyd said that the only thing you have to do to prang an airplane is be in it. And the closer to the ground you are the less time you have to do anything about it. Airline passenger aircraft do not have escape systems. Neither did Chuck Yeager in the Bell X-1 and X-1A. Some B-52 crewmen do not have ejection seats, and other than the A/C and pilot (pilot and co-pilot), those that do have downward seats...not much use near the ground. Those that don't have seats at all must drop out through the hatches after the others have ejected. If the plane is spinning, they have no better chance of getting out than a B-17 crewman! But, we all take chances. Some are calculated risks. Saying that you can't opt out of a Shuttle Flight because it is the only game in town IS disingenuous...because NOBODY IS FORCING YOU TO FLY! I often told my wife, before we were married nearly 39 years ago that if a chance ever came to fly a space mission there would be no discussion...I would go. Knowing what I know about the Shuttle at this point, I WOULD have to think twice about it. So far as this former astronaut's book is concerned, he isn't the first to "write a book exposing this 'chicken outfit'." At this point in time, the question is whether he is out to do anything to solve the problem...or just making money? I don't know. Not sure if I will buy the book or not. NASA

mlorrey · Jan 23, 2006

"And, why didn´t he voice his concerns about shuttle being a trap when he was an active astronaut? Every astronaut that rides a shuttle knows how risky the vehicle is. This doesnt prevent any from flying it, with only two losts in more than 100 flights. He is being, at least, unloyal to his profession. " How do you know he didn't voice his concerns? NASA is not very open about its complaints/safety process. And loyalty is earned, not given. His profession doesn't save any lives, defend any borders, solve any crimes, put down any tyrants, or put out any fires, nor does his profession currently expand any fronteirs of exploration, yet they demonstrably have the most dangerous profession. He has as much a right to complain about unsafe working conditions as those miners who died in West Virginia. A corporation that doesn't act on the safety concerns of its employees does not deserve their 'loyalty'. If the shuttle were a test aircraft, you would expect its crew to accept a degree of risk. It is not treated as a test aircraft, it is treated as a cargo airliner with an astronomical maintenance burden. Would you demand airline employees to remain loyal if 1 in 50 airline flights crashed? Don't be a fool.

ace5 · Jan 23, 2006

"NOBODY IS FORCING YOU TO FLY! " Yes. Every astronaut is a volunteer. "...I would go. Knowing what I know about the Shuttle at this point, I WOULD have to think twice about it. " OK. I think that many astronauts have thought twice or 3 or 4 times since Apollo 1, Soyuz 1, Soyuz 11, Challenger and Columbia. Ask who of them doesn´t wanted to fly. Just look at a flying machine that doesn´t have an escape system like an escape tower. And that have no jet engine for a second try at landing. You will see that the engineers have designed it in this way and it is in this way that it flies. You doesn´t need any *independent safety report on space shuttle* for realize that there is danger. But once you have taken the decision to embark, you have accepted the risks. "So far as this former astronaut's book is concerned, he isn't the first to "write a book exposing this 'chicken outfit'." At this point in time, the question is whether he is out to do anything to solve the problem...or just making money? I don't know. Not sure if I will buy the book or not. " Yes. Lets see the entire text, and Mullanes´s ideas and arguments. Member of the Pro-Spaceflight/ ISS / Shuttle and anything that keeps mankind moving ahead towards the stars.

jhoblik · Jan 23, 2006

Every body is talking about space system used to deliver humans on orbit as man rated vehicle. But honestly this is not a case of space shuttle. I understand that this system will work probably in 99 cases right and just one will failed. But old space systems had maybe a little but worse reliability, but they have escape system, it means there safety was thanks that 100 or more times better. This is a reason that space shuttle is not man rated and I will call it also as death trap.

drwayne · Jan 23, 2006

Note that escape systems that were employed by earlier systems did not have 100% coverage during the ascent profile. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

henryhallam · Jan 23, 2006

An escape system would not have helped the 107 crew. Many potential incidents don't occur during ascent or not in a way that would be detectable in time for an ET to fire.

drwayne · Jan 23, 2006

And the flight regime in which the Gemini ejection seats could have been used was pretty narrow as I recall. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

rocketwatcher2001 · Jan 23, 2006

Soyuz has an escape system, but it still killed two of it's crews. Apollo had an escape system, and I drive down Grissom Blvd. on my way to the store. If people are going to fly, people are going to die. Of course, there are ways to reduce the risks, but nothing is 100%. If the CEV, or whatever, flies enough, something is going to go wrong and kill the crew, just like Soyuz, Apollo, and Shuttle. Flying has it's dangers, flying in space has a lot more, but somehow I don't think NASA is going to have a problem meeting it's recruitment goals. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

krrr · Jan 23, 2006

Even the training is considerably more dangerous than the average person would accept, but it is part of the job. But this should be a thing of the past. Astronauts these days should be generally fit, but they don't need to be steely-eyed rocket men. You and I would easily survive a Shuttle or Soyuz flight without special training. I think crew survival should be the very first priority. Dead astronauts just make bad PR. Challenger and Columbia were relatively benign because the accidents occurred within Earth's vicinity, but think about astronauts stranded ("marooned") somewhere between Earth and Moon (or Mars).

nolirogari · Jan 23, 2006

Okay- just a bit here from a professional flyer with a couple decades under my wings. Fact- any time the human body speeds past 50 knots or is elevated higher than 50 feet, it can be killed- PERIOD. Escape is nothing more than "a chance." It is not insurance from the laws of physics. You think yer' really safe flying in a twin engine aircraft just because there's a second engine out there turning? WRONG! In most small twins under 12,500 pounds that engine only gets you to the crash site quicker and in all multi engine aircraft there is a little killer known as Vmc. Likewise with launch escape systems. There's always a chance to get killed. What did in Challenger and Columbia was that the 50/50 rule that I stated here was forgotten and management ignored the dangers. Flyers die when management trumps engineering. And flyers die when the go/no-go final decision is taken from the hands of the pilots. If you wanna talk aboud danger in motion- take any car or van, load it with people and drive it around the beltway of DC for the sum of miles that the shuttle fleet has racked up, and then see which death rate is higher. I'm sure even the most anti-shuttle reader out there won't take that one up. Flying the shuttle is better than the gap and you go into space with the shuttle you have.

kdavis007 · Jan 23, 2006

Sounds like sour grapes...

SpaceKiwi · Jan 23, 2006

Well said, noli. This idea that an Astronaut's life is somehow sacrosanct or deserving of an unrealistic level of 'safety' over and above the 'mere mortal' is quite beyond me. Of course, no one likes to see anybody killed in any kind of accident, be it a Shuttle mission or mowing the lawn, but it is an inevitable by-product of the act of living our lives. So long as people want to continue to go into space, people are unfortunately going to die doing so, it's that simple. As for Mr. Mullane ... well, just the very cynical act of a man who was quite happy to go back for seconds and thirds, and is now attempting to make a living off of the very vehicle he decries. If you lurk around here Mr. Mullane, show some class man. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

steve82 · Jan 24, 2006

Hard to say because you can't really tell what he was interviewing about and what specific questions he was answering. I trust his judgement though, he was a steady, hardworking astronaut who came from the AirForce with a lot of combat experience in Vietnam. His book is definitely on my reading list. While he may not be as well-known as some of the others who flew more visible missions, he is not alone in his opinion that the shuttle is a dangerous vehicle. No less an authority than Story Musgrave said pretty much the same in a TV interview in the last year or two. He might not have used the word "deathtrap" but he made it clear that if he had a choice he would take a safer conveyance to get into space.

john_316 · Jan 24, 2006

I'm not gonna touch this one because any time you get in a car, plane, train or other vehicle you inheritently put your life at risk. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

CalliArcale · Jan 24, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Flyers die when management trumps engineering. And flyers die when the go/no-go final decision is taken from the hands of the pilots. <hr /></blockquote> Ironically, one of the things that made the early American space program safer than the Russian one was that the pilots did have the final go/no-go and could themselves directly trigger an abort. "Man-in-the-loop". Well really, they still can. But the Challenger crew couldn't command an abort because they didn't know about the dangerous condition. Like the flight controllers at both JSC and KSC, they were divorced from the engineers who knew there was a problem. It was, essentially, a breakdown in communications. The Columbia accident I consider to be more complex. By the time the problem had occured, there was really nothing that could be done to save the crew besides pray that the foam hadn't caused too much damage. That one is more of an engineering failure than a management failure. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

radarredux · Jan 24, 2006

The "Science Times" section of today's New York Times has an article on Col. Michael Mullane, his book, and his role as a motivational speaker. I came away with a very different and much more positive view of him and the issues he raises than what was posted here initially and the following thread. First, Mullane pokes fun at himself quite a bit and recognizes many in is astronaut class outshown him. He does not (in this article) portray himself as "one of America's most experienced astronauts". Second, his primary mission now is as a motivational speaker, and he uses his own life and NASA to illustrate points that people can use in their own lives -- it is not to bash the shuttle and NASA. For example, on teamwork he talks about the importance of speaking up when you believe something is wrong. He illustrates the point with an example when he was a weapons and navigational systems operator on a fighter jet and did not speak up when he felt the pilot was dangerous ignoring the low fuel indicator. He deferred to the pilot. In the end, the jet ran out of fuel, they had to bail out, and and the F-111 became a $20 million pile of rubble. He then compares this to Challenger and Columbia. In both cases, the problems that ultimately brought down both shuttle were well known, but people did not raise their voices enough before hand. The lesson: as a team member in your organization (whatever it is), you need to have the courage to speak up. He also maps the problem of people not speaking up to management style. In the case of NASA, because the selection process for flights were relatively secret, astronauts were effectively discouraged from complaining for fear of being passed over. Don't forget, NASA's culture was cited as a primary contributor to both Challenger and Columbia. Finally, he does say the design of the shuttle is inherently flawed, and will be until it is retired. Everyone wit

Shuttle a deathtrap, says astronaut

arenean

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

nacnud

Guest

rfoshaug

Guest

nolirogari

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

vogon13

Guest

ace5

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

trailrider

Guest

mlorrey

Guest

ace5

Guest

jhoblik

Guest

drwayne

Guest

henryhallam

Guest

drwayne

Guest

rocketwatcher2001

Guest

krrr

Guest

nolirogari

Guest

kdavis007

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

steve82

Guest

john_316

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

radarredux

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page