shuttle fundamentally unsafe?

radarredux · Feb 8, 2005

NASA's primary argument against using the shuttle to service the Hubble telescope is that it too risky (e.g., no abort to ISS option). This is even after the shuttle has been grounded for a couple of years and billions have been invested in safety upgrades. But NASA plans to send the CEV system beyond Earth orbit with no obvious abort to ISS option. So if NASA won't send the shuttle to Hubble, is this an admission that the shuttle is fundamentally unsafe and the replacement vehicle (which will go well beyond Hubble) will be much much safer than the shuttle?

shuttle_rtf · Feb 8, 2005

My opinion.... No manned spacecraft is going to be 100 per cent safe. Even your car isn't. I think the point was that it's a question of justification and merit for sending astronauts to Hubble - added to the fact that the Shuttle is always going to be heading to the ISS from now means there's a safe haven senario should there be a fault, till an STS-300 rescue mission by another Shuttle...as the case is with STS-114 RTF 1 (Atlantis being the rescue shuttle if Discovery has a major problem). I do not know if a Shuttle could reach the ISS - should there be a problem en route to Hubble.

shuttle_rtf · Feb 8, 2005

I think Bill Parsons (Shuttle Director) said it best, when he noted: "Whenever you propell a vehicle from zero to 17,500 MPH in around eight minutes, there's always risks".

shuttle_rtf · Feb 8, 2005

>No, it could not "abort to the ISS"< Thanks, I wasn't qualified to say. Is it safe to assume that the CAIB findings/requirements practically killed the Hubble servicing mission...I know O'Keefe made the more visable ending to the mission, but I have the feeling that with the RBAR turn the Shuttle will do infront of the ISS to check for damage - going to Hubble would have seen some of these safety elements being impossible to carry out?

no_way · Feb 8, 2005

"is this an admission that the shuttle is fundamentally unsafe" Thats not its main flaw. No system is fundamentally safe. Shuttle ( and all shuttle-derived vehicles) is fundamentally expensive.

radarredux · Feb 8, 2005

> The reported figure is 1.5 billion./i> True, but roughly another $8 billion have been spent on shuttle operations over the last two years during which no shuttle has flown.

CalliArcale · Feb 8, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I think Bill Parsons (Shuttle Director) said it best, when he noted: "Whenever you propell a vehicle from zero to 17,500 MPH in around eight minutes, there's always risks".<hr /></blockquote> Y'know, that sums it up in a nutshell. The Shuttle is risky. So's SpaceShipOne, to be honest, and that only goes up to the equivalent of Mach 3. Shuttle does atmosphere interface at the equivalent of somewhere around Mach 15. The margin for error is amazingly narrow in that sort of environment, which basically means it's risky. I'm not sure there's really a way around that. I mean, sure, you can do risk mitigation, but it's never going to be zero, and in that sort of situation, I'm not sure you can really even get all that close to zero. <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 · Feb 8, 2005

> The margin for error is amazingly narrow in that sort of environment, which basically means it's risky. I'm not sure there's really a way around that./i> So it isn't necessarily that the shuttle is unsafe, but a manned trip to service the Hubble isn't worth the risk in *any* vehicle. My original question was in part questioning NASA's (potentially) "risk averse" culture, something criticized during the Moon2Mars committee hearings. The comments went something like: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />If NASA is afraid to visit the Hubble (a proven valuable scientific instrument), how is NASA going to find the courage to move beyond LEO?<hr /></blockquote> To broaden the question more: How does NASA measure the potential for loss of life (vehicle, and so on), the value of a mission, and then draw the line to say the value of a particular mission is worth the potential of loss of life? Or to narrow it down to something more concrete: Since the ISS will need about 28 more shuttle missions to complete, the Hubble needs one shuttle mission to service it, is the value (knowledge gained, etc) of the ISS more than 28 times that of the Hubble? Just curious as to how the calculus is done.

steve82 · Feb 8, 2005

"NASA's primary argument against using the shuttle to service the Hubble telescope is that it too risky..." Of course there are risks associated with any space activity, but aside from the risk of losing the shuttle and crew, there is a bigger risk and that is losing the program. If we lose another shuttle, the US will be out of the manned spaceflight business until some day when another vehicle comes along. The only reason we still have a shuttle program after losing two of them is ISS, but if we lose another, and there aren't enough Russian vehicles to support, I suspect the ISS will be de-manned and we'll close up shop for a few years. So when people ask if Hubble is worth the "risk" they need to look at it in those terms because that is what's at stake.

radarredux · Feb 8, 2005

> if we lose another [shuttle] ... I suspect the ISS will be de-manned and we'll close up shop for a few years./i> Interesting perspective, and a reason that NASA might have troubles admitting to in public.

SpaceKiwi · Feb 9, 2005

Unfortunately NASA already has an entrenched risk-adverse culture. Why this should be, I am not entirely certain, but I imagine it is in large part due to factors like human spaceflight being extremely rare and the hardware being incredibly expensive. Not to diminish the loss of Columbia and her gallant crew (or perhaps it would be 'healthier' to do so?), but do their lives have any more value than a mini-van of 7 workmates who are tragically lost in a road accident on their way home from a worksite? Both examples are equally sad, yet the Columbia loss results in the Shuttle program being paralysed for two years. As has been commented, human spaceflight is incredibly dangerous and there is no getting around that fundamental point. In my view, it's not going to significantly change with the advent of CEV, or the succession of vehicles which come after that. People will continue to be lost so long as humans want to venture into space. The only thing that will change is that those losses will become less 'dramatic'. Instead of SRB's blowing up and Orbiters getting terminally punctured, loss of life will occur due to more innocuous things. That will be taken as a sign of design improvement and also increasing 'space experience'. It will probably coincide with human spaceflight becoming more commonplace. But, until we get Star Trek/Buck Rogers/Battlestar Galactica type experienced, human spaceflight is going to be damned dangerous. And you will note, even in those fictional examples, the spaceships still go ka-blewey from time to time. You will tell how this 21st century industry is maturing by how pragmatic it becomes when loss occurs, and by how soon they are ready to get back on the horse after a loss of life incident. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

scottb50 · Feb 9, 2005

The problem is the Shuttle could pose for the ISS for a visual inspection on arrival as easily as carrying an added piece of hardware. If damage is suspected there is a lot more room to store repair materials on ISS than Shuttle and Spacewalks are more routine. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

CalliArcale · Feb 9, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />So it isn't necessarily that the shuttle is unsafe, but a manned trip to service the Hubble isn't worth the risk in *any* vehicle. <hr /></blockquote> No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Personally, I very much think it's worth the risk. All I was pointing out was that it's risky -- so the question isn't whether we can acheive zero risk, since we can't, but what level of risk we can tolerate and whether we can acheive that level of risk. I confess I am afraid that NASA and/or the government will come to the conclusion that the risk of manned spaceflight is too high, and close up shop altogether (at least as far as manned spaceflight goes). <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>

CalliArcale · Feb 9, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Not to diminish the loss of Columbia and her gallant crew (or perhaps it would be 'healthier' to do so?), but do their lives have any more value than a mini-van of 7 workmates who are tragically lost in a road accident on their way home from a worksite? Both examples are equally sad, yet the Columbia loss results in the Shuttle program being paralysed for two years. <hr /></blockquote> Now that is a really good point. Seven astronauts killed in a shuttle, or seven engineers killed in a car crash.... Which is worse? In terms of loss of life, neither. Which is more likely to recur? The car crash. It's a question of acceptable risk, of course. I think one thing that is seldom stated is that to many of us, the loss of a Shuttle crew *is* worse than the loss of seven guys in a minivan. This is in part because the *Shuttle* is lost as well. We don't get emotionally attached to minivans, but we do to multi-billion dollar technological marvels that serve to display our nation's fantastic acheivements. There's also the loss of money, of course, and the loss of nearly all of the scientific payloads. But probably most of all, for many people, it's because it's an extraordinary circumstance. We're used to people dying in car crashes. We're not used to them dying in spacecraft, so we subconsciously think it won't happen. Maybe that's why it's so much more paralyzing. <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>

steve82 · Feb 9, 2005

Anybody remember the name of the guy killed in the nitrogen purge accident just prior to STS-1?

drwayne · Feb 9, 2005

One thing that I believe, based on no evidence whatsoever, is that perhaps management, and some of us, worry about the marooned scenario. The scenario of a crew slowly dying, while daily news covers the slow motion death and the inability of those on the ground to do anything to save them - that would appear to be worse for the space program, and the nation than either Challenger or Columbia in some eyes. Yes, I know the outcome is not inevitable, or even likely. Yes, I realize a variation of this could even happen with the ISS lifeboat scenario. But I can see where such a scenario could play havoc with logical decision making among management types. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

vogon13 · Feb 9, 2005

John G. Bjornstad and Forrest G. Cole suffocated in Columbia engine compartment 3/19/1981 <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>

vogon13 · Feb 10, 2005

I will be embarrassed if I have the date wrong. How do we referee this in this forum? Do we each start ramping up insults until moderator zaps us, then we go off on tangent about whether a speed boat would work on the sun? Or does someone we all trust like spacester or shuttleguy cite a reference thus quelling a seething fracas of fracasness? Thanx for your support! <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>

steve82 · Feb 10, 2005

"John G. Bjornstad and Forrest G. Cole suffocated in Columbia engine compartment " I'm glad someone out there remembers their sacrifice.

SpaceKiwi · Feb 10, 2005

""But probably most of all, for many people, it's because it's an extraordinary circumstance. We're used to people dying in car crashes. We're not used to them dying in spacecraft, so we subconsciously think it won't happen. Maybe that's why it's so much more paralyzing."" You are exactly right Calli, it is the exclusivity of both human spaceflight and the vehicles involved in spaceflight that put such a 'paralysing' exclaimation point on what is otherwise 'simply' the loss of another 7 lives in a vehicular accident. Of course nobody likes the loss of life in any accident, whether it be a car crash or something as rare as a Shuttle loss. Every death is mourned by family and loved ones and colleagues alike. The problem with 'safety' and the Shuttle is that we seem to be moving 'backwards' in our attitude towards it. Rather than develop a 'thicker skin' towards loss of life, or a pragmatism if you will, the Shuttle program is going the other way and unfortunately taking the public with them. Compare Columbia to Apollo 1 for example. No question, two very tragic and sad events in the history of NASA and of the American people. However, driven by the needs of the Apollo program and the wider battle with the Soviets, NASA quickly pressed on from Apollo 1. Does this mean that the people in those days were more callous or more unfeeling? No, of course not. But I do believe there was a 'better' understanding of the risks involved by the industry and general public alike. Contrast the spacesuits of the Mercury 7 with those worn in a current EVA. Compare the tin can of the capsule age with the 'brick outhouse' that is Shuttle. Spaceflight today 'looks' safer, it looks cooler, it is undoubtedly perceived by the public as much safer. Yet, I don't believe we have moved all that far from the supposedly more dangerous days of the 60's as might be widely held. I was watching a Q&A session on NASA TV last night between <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

SpaceKiwi · Feb 10, 2005

Apologies for getting a bit fired up on this topic. I guess I'm getting older and would like to see a little more progress in my lifetime, and a little less trying to make unsafe activities appear safer primarily for its 'feel-better' value. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

CalliArcale · Feb 10, 2005

Well, there's certainly no crime in being enthusiastic about the subject. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Regarding what vogon said about "ramping up insults until a mod zaps them or somebody knowledgable comes in with stats", that's a tough one to answer. Obviously *as* a mod, I'd prefer people avoid insults at all. But when you get passionate about something, it's easy to get just a little more passionate and then something you say is taken out of context by somebody equally passionate, and you have to defend yourself, and then things can rapidly spiral out of control. I guess from my personal experience, the best advice is this. If you feel like you're getting angry, get up from your PC or go read some articles someplace else on the Web or otherwise get away from the forum for a few minutes until you're not angry anymore. Then see if you still want to say what you wanted to say when you were angry. Odds are, if you still think it needs to be said even when you're not mad, it's probably good to post. But if after you've calmed down and thought about it, it doesn't sound so nice anymore, it was probably a good thing that you didn't say it. If nothing else, people are much more likely to misunderstand words spoken in anger than words spoken in a calm voice. <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>

najab · Feb 10, 2005

>s this an admission that the shuttle is fundamentally unsafe and the replacement vehicle (which will go well beyond Hubble) will be much much safer than the shuttle?In a word: yes. When they were designing the Shuttle they made the choice to have an "intact abort" capability only. This meant that the only way to save the crew was to save the vehicle. The reasons for that decision aren't important here, the key point is that from that point onwards the Shuttle system would be no safer than its weakest component - it all had to work. It's worth noting that RTLS capability was a 'late add' to the program, and that even with this capability an engine failure off the pad would result in total loss of vehicle and crew (RTLS becomes an option at about T+0:30). The first 'true' abort mode is TAL (I don't consider RTLS to be a true abort mode since it may well be more risky to try it than to ride the stack to the point you can do a TAL. If you are in a situation where RTLS is a good idea you're already dead and are just trying to cheat the Grim Reaper out of his bounty!)Even after the Challenger accident, with the addition of the slidepole crew escape system, the Shuttle system is baised towards intact abort - realistically speaking the slidepole wouldn't be useful in the majority of failure scenarios.The CEV, on the other hand, is being designed from the ground up to incorporate true partial abort modes (or should I call them contingency aborts?). Every concept I have seen so far (not that I've seen them all) includes provision for abort at every stage of the ascent (reentry aborts are necessarily hard). The crucial thing about these abort modes is that they consider recovery of the vehicle to be secondary to the safety of the crew. That's why they are safer than Shuttle.

drwayne · Feb 10, 2005

"You can see this on any commercial airline flight. Watch the people around you before the flight, especially as the required safety briefing is given by the cabin crew. The folks you see paying attention, or reading the seat cards before leaving the gate, are ALMOST ALWAYS pilots!" I watch the flight attendant because I know what a pain it is to have a presentation ignored. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> I look for the nearest exit, and imagine how many seats I would feel before I got there. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

vogon13 · Feb 10, 2005

I noted discrepancy with dates and had noticed in other threads things getting out of hand over much less stimulation. Thought phrase "quelling fracas of fracasness" was pretty obvious attempt at abating problem with HUMOR, rather than ramping up insults as I've seen others do here. Also, citing shuttleguy as authority I would trust to resolve discrepancy is FUNNY as he provided discrepant date in the first place. If'n y'all make me splain the jokes, they tain't funny no mo ATTENTION: JOKE COMING UP Now I've got a moderator trying to start something with me! OK RELAX JOKE OVER discussion: that was really really funny, because of irony. moderators don't 'start things' with posters so the humor involved is that you were trying to do so without meaning too which is kinda the point of this whole post. Gosh SDC is a tough gig, but that audience in Omaha a while back, comedian wouldn't have got a reaction even if he had {obscenity filter engaged mode} with a nail gun. Humor is a difficult concept. Savik <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>

shuttle fundamentally unsafe?

radarredux

Guest

shuttle_rtf

Guest

shuttle_rtf

Guest

shuttle_rtf

Guest

no_way

Guest

radarredux

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

radarredux

Guest

steve82

Guest

radarredux

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

scottb50

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

steve82

Guest

drwayne

Guest

vogon13

Guest

vogon13

Guest

steve82

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

najab

Guest

drwayne

Guest

vogon13

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page