vse dead cause of shuttle

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">they needed to killed the shuttle when it murderd seven people in 1986</font>/i><br /><br />I suspect that those who are being "murdered" do not share your position, because there hasn't been a major exodus from the astronaut corps. The astronauts are rational adults, and they can choose how they want to risk their lives.<br /><br />I ride a motorcycle, which I know is orders of magnitude more dangerous than driving a car, yet I still choose to do it. I am free to make the choices that I do for reasons that are my own.<br /><br />You can complain about the dollars that are lost (because they are your dollars), but I don't think you can complain about the lives that are lost (because those lives are their own, not yours). Their choice to fly is their own, for reasons that may be unique to each one.</i>

 

[BReif]

spaceiscool said:"they needed to killed the shuttle when it murderd seven people in 1986, instead they allowed the same incompetent fools to keep going to kill another seven."<br /><br />If we were to kill every space vehicle that had an accident, then there would not have been a continuation of Gemini after Gemini 8, or an Apollo after Apollo 1 oir Apollo 13, or a Soyuz after Soyuz 1. They all have had accidents, and with the exception of Gemini, accidents with fatalities.<br /><br />The Space Shuttle is a vehicle, which unfortunately, has had two accidents resulting in the loss of the lives of 14 astronauts. To say that the vehicle murdered the crews: that is just not the case. the word "murder" implies intent to kill. A vehicle can not "murder", and the NASA managment did not have intent to kill either. No one wanted these crews to die in these accidents. In spaceflight, there is an inherent risk that every astronaut knows about and accepts as a part of flying on the shuttle, or any other space vehicle. That risk will always be there to a greater or lesser degree. There is risk in everything that we do, driving, living in tornado alley, or in a hurricane zone, flying on airliners, flying in general aviation, or riding on trains to name a few. Living involves risk, and to avoid all risk, or not accept it, is to "not live" IMO. As for me personally, even knowing about the accidents with Challenger and Columbia, and the continuing problems that the Space Shuttle has, I would still fly onboard in a heartbeat if given the opportunity, despite the risk. I would be willing to accept it. I beleive that the astronaut corps is willing to accept it as well. The CEV will also have flight risks associated with it once it is ready to fly. Hopefully the risks will be lesser than STS, but there will be risks. If our society and civilization wants to "truly live" then some degree of risk must necessarily be accepted.

 

[spaceiscool]

u forget both shuttle crashes came cause of incomeptent workers working on terrible desinged and serviced space planes.

 

[BReif]

Spaceiscool, you have missed the point altogether. You have not addressed the issue. A vehicle does not murder, and no one wished anyone dead. Are you accussing the workers, and the engineers of murder? If so, that is a serious charge, and one that I think they would not take lightly. <br /><br />Is the shuttle a terrible design, I do not think so. Is it terribly maintained, I do not think so either. Did the risks catch up with it, yes. It is a vehicle that has flown for 20+ years (over 100 missions), with two accidents. Less accidents than occurred overall through the program than with Apollo, which had two accidents in 20 missions. <br /><br />The risks caught up with Apollo, twice, and Gemini, once, and Soyuz several times. Did these spacecraft also murder their crews? Did the engineers and workers murder, and were they incompetant? I really do not think so, not for past programs and not for the shuttle.<br /><br />I do hope that there has been learning from what has transpired and from these accidents, but I think that "murder" is a misclassification of what really happened.

 

[telfrow]

Nice post breif.<br /><br />From: http://www.answers.com/space%20disasters<br /><br /><i>The history of space exploration has been marred by a number of tragedies that resulted in the deaths of the astronauts or ground crew. As of 2004, in-flight accidents had killed 18 astronauts, training accidents had claimed at least 11 astronauts and launch pad accidents had killed at least 70 ground crew.</i><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[BReif]

telfrow, thanks for the link. It is very useful information.

 

[drwayne]

It is unclear to me how either accident could be blamed on workers.<br /><br />Challenger's root cause lay in the management decisions that led to launching in dangerous conditions. No one at the worker level was aware of any issues related to flight safety. This is pretty clear.<br /><br />To be fair to management (something I am not fond of doing) - the data presented to them was ambiguous *before the fact*, and the Thiokol engineers did not stick to their guns. Now, I firmly believe that in the case of safety, ambiguous needs to be resolved in the direction of safety rather than th direction of "Go" - but I am not in the position to dictate such things, and, to be honest, do not have the brass to handle such a job.<br /><br />Columbia is somewhat less clear. The foam coming from the bipod area could have been a worker error, though I doubt it. (It would have been to NASA's advantage to have brought that forth). I again lay most of the blame at the management level - in particular management convincing themselves that variances from specification were OK, because they had gotten away with them in the past. And then falling back on the "cross our fingers and hope for the best" rather than aggressively evaluating the system - and looking for ways to save a crew if need be.<br /><br />I think you need to be a little more circumspect with terms like incompetent, particularly when applying them to people who probably know their jobs better than you or I know them. Please let that soak in. Many folks like to think they can be a "Monday morning quarterback", and that they know how things "should work" as well or better than those making the calls and doing the work. Most of the time, they are wrong.<br /><br />Every space vehicle or aircraft that I have been involved with has had known failure modes. They all had compromises. That's engineering in the real world. Thats not incompetence.<br /><br />Wayne<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

Its comments like this... <br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>u forget both shuttle crashes came cause of incomeptent workers working on terrible desinged and serviced space planes.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />...that make me sometimes wish that this was a reality tv show, not a forum. <br /> Then we could vote you ass outta here! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[mattblack]

Somewhere, Jeffrey Bell is laughing like a hyaena... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[spaceiscool]

who is bell?

 

[kdavis007]

Relax.......

 

[spaceiscool]

is he like derbyshire?

 

[toymaker]

Jeffrey Bell-space explorations is for loosers-go pick rocks on Hawaii instead. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br />That is all that there is to say about the guy. Just stop reading him and it will be fine.<br />I felt dissapointed because he left one of his long treaties "Oh how I despise everybody interested in space" with unfinished ending in which he promised to write how to make space exploration succesfull, it was about a year ago <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[toymaker]

Actually Bell is quite bitter and sad. Looking at history of his articles I think he was a space enthusiast that became disullisioned and now hates those like him before.