shuttle fundamentally unsafe?

[CalliArcale]

I should've pointed out that I really liked the phrase "quelling fracas of fracasness". It's a cool phrase. Do you mind if I quote it elsewhere? It's humorous, which is useful for defusing situations, and it does a great job of really cutting to the heart of things. It's amazing how humor can do that. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"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."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

You're free to use it, but I'm not sure I've had much luck with it.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Actually, I'm pretty sure my date is wrong as I only have a scribbled note to work from and don't recall who gave it to me or when. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[googlenaut]

Kind of back on topic...<br /><br />I would just comment that the Shuttle is an experimental vehicle. Many new technologies were pioneered with the shuttle, including the reusable surface insulation. I agree with many others that because of the demanding performance regimens burdening the shuttle--it is inherently risky. But then so is every other high performance vehicle!<br /><br />The issue of whether the risk is worth taking can be best answered by the people asked to fly the machine. Being the actual people chosen to ride the machine--they might have important insights. I'm sure that most would probably choose to ride--some would probably bow out (and some have in the past.) Taking risks is inherent to exploration--nothing is gained by taking no risks at all. However, calculated risk mitigation (and not just risk aversion) can improve mission success and safety. We will take losses in the future--no question about that. But do we choose to sit on our hands, or do we proceed? It would seem to me that the act of continuing on with the great venture of exploration is an act of affirmation for those who have died trying.<br /><br />It is in this spirit that I think that the manned space program would be best served by replacing the space shuttle with a second generation vehicle. Take what has been learned over the decades of STS operation and move on. Also the development of a smaller crew-assured-return vehicle (a mini spaceplane if you will) is an excellent idea. Such a vehicle will improve the safety of the crews onboard the Space Station, and if several were kept on the ground in a 'hot launch' configuration, such a system could improve the safety for all space travellers by providing a redundant space rescue capability that has so far been lacking. I would also like to promote the idea of an international space docking standard--which could be released license free for countries wishing to fly manned missions. An international docking standard would improve safet

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">VG: "John G. Bjornstad and Forrest G. Cole suffocated in Columbia engine compartment 3/19/1981 "<br /><br />SG: "That was Feb 20,1981. John Bjornstad and Forrest Cole died. "<br /><br />VG: "I will be embarrassed if I have the date wrong. How do we referee this in this forum? "</font><br /><br />Answer -- you find a link via Google that provides evidence one way or another. From that link:<br /><br /><i>"Through a chain of miscommunications several technicians entered the shuttle's aft compartment on March 19, shortly after the shuttle's dress rehearsal was completed. They fell unconscious in the nitrogen-filled aft compartment. Other techs were able to pull their bodies out and fire and rescue personnel gave the victims CPR and oxygen. John Bjornstad died the day of the accident. Technician Forrest Cole lingered on, dying on April 1st. Four others were either hospitalized or treated and released. Some had respiratory problems for the rest of their lives."</i> <br /><br />From this -- it appears that vogon has the correct date.<br /><br />As for jokes, you might start them out with a topic line: 'A man walks into a bar with a duck under his arm...' and then proceed to the humor from there. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">An international docking standard would improve safety by providing a means for vehicles to link up and transfer crews or emergency parts and supplies. This will improve safety for all.</font><br /><br />One already exists, the Androgynous Peripheral Attachment System. The Soyuz has been adapted to use it, MIR used it, the Shuttle uses it, the ISS uses it and it is used on the Shenzhou<br /><br /><br />

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"The Soyuz has been adapted to use it..."</font><br /><br />I know that <b>one</b> Soyuz was flown with an APAS-89 when they were testing it out prior to the shuttle-Mir missions (or possibly it was being tested for Buran -- going from very fallable memory rather than re-looking it up). However -- in the main they don't use them, and I don't know *how* modified that sucker was to be able to sport the APAS. I'm sure it reduced payload, as the APAS is larger than the C&D system.

 

[nacnud]

It was modified but still managed to carry two cosmonauts to Mir and back. See TM-16 , piccy here

 

[mrmorris]

s'fine. I was just making sure the distinction was clear for the people in the cheap seats between the Soyuz being <b>capable</b> of using that system vs. it actually using the APAS routinely. I don't think a standard Soyuz -- built for C&D could have that swapped for an APAS rapidly (i.e. in a rescue situation). Faster than building a Soyuz from scratch certainly, but not just a quick switcheroo.

 

[nacnud]

True, I agree with you there.<br /><br />Still I wonder if the only differences between a Soyuz TM and a Soyuz TM APAS are in the orbital module? If so it might not be too hard to swap out the orbital module depending on the mission type. Rather speculative though.

 

[SpaceKiwi]

""One already exists, the Androgynous Peripheral Attachment System.""<br /><br /><br />Want to get the public on board with space exploration? Then they reeeeeeeally have to stop coming up with these 'indecipherable without a PhD' names for the cool stuff! I mean really ... would it have killed to try something like 'Docking Port' or 'Docking Mechanism' or even "Universal Docking Mechanism'? Maybe SG can confirm if the occasional back-room boy or girl spontaneously combusts when someone suggests an obvious and sensible title for something.<br /><br />After much consideration of this phenonemon, I have come up with a revision of my theory on the subject. I no longer believe that the primary goal of the 'Office Of Silly Names' is to come up with ones in which the acronym also spells a word which can optionally be related back to the subject/object/project being named. I now believe the primary factor in selecting a name for something is, in fact, which letters remain unused so far on the 'Office Of Silly Names' Letraset card. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />, you have to blamb the Russians for the APAS though, How about Common Rendezvous Attachment Port?

 

[SpaceKiwi]

Emphatically hear hear!<br /><br />Laurel Clark unquestionably demonstrated that she had the Right Stuff but, even more importantly, she showed herself to have an outstanding philosophy for the living of life.<br /><br />Long may the Astronaut Office continue to follow Laurel's example. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

Hehehehe. indeed! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[steve82]

Got me to searching and here's another article on the purge accident:<br /><br />http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003017 <br /><br />"They Also Died<br />We erred yesterday when we described Columbia's loss as the second fatal accident in space-shuttle history; we should have said the second fatal in-flight accident. A sidebar to an InterspaceNews.com account of Columbia's maiden voyage, in 1981, describes a tragedy associated with that flight:<br /><br />To prevent an accidental fire or explosion sealed compartments on the shuttle and ground equipment are purged with pure nitrogen. Nitrogen isn't poisonous but without oxygen a fire can't happen--however people can't breathe either. <br /><br />Through a chain of miscommunications several technicians entered the shuttle's aft compartment on March 19, shortly after the shuttle's dress rehearsal was completed. They fell unconscious in the nitrogen-filled aft compartment. Other techs were able to pull their bodies out and fire and rescue personnel gave the victims CPR and oxygen. John Bjornstad died the day of the accident. Technician Forrest Cole lingered on, dying on April 1st. Four others were either hospitalized or treated and released. Some had respiratory problems for the rest of their lives.<br /><br />The accident review board noted that a series of events led to confusion, a do not enter sign was removed when it should have been replaced with another sign with a warning. A supervisor was called away to another location. One tech who put on an emergency breathing mask and tried to see if anybody was still inside the shuttle couldn't tell because his mask fogged over. The accident led to more stringent safety rules and procedures. During the STS-1 mission astronauts John Young and Bob Crippen recognized Bjornstad and Cole for their sacrifice to the shuttle program."<br /><br />