Why must space flight be safe?

[le3119]

Good point! Many would-be space explorers would accept a risk close to 50-50, I personally, would not (maybe 1 in 10 odds of failure). But the politicians who preside over the manned exploration budget (many of whom of lawyers) cannot accept such a high risk of failure. Space explorers don't have to worry about reelection every two or four years, and in my own experience working with politicians, they tend to error on the side of too safe! <br /><br />Private adventurers and their companies (post X-prize) will assume higher risks if they percieve the returns in their investments to be worth it. They (I hope and pray) won't have politicians defining risk for them, but count on the insurance underwriters and trial lawyers to eventually impose their perception of risk upon such ventures. <br /><br />Am I free to blast off from Earth, launching my ship over a populated area? What should be the constraints on my freedom - I think some degree is reasonable. Are we going to have to deal with nay-sayers and protesters every time we launch a nuclear-powered probe (like Cassini)? Probably, but we who care deeply about space exploration must educate the politicians and the public about the actual risks involved, and fight the hysteria some express over anything nuclear.

 

[soccerguy789]

I totally agree that space flight doesnt need to be safe. I read somewhere that some shuttle critic was stating that for every so many shuttle launches, 1 person has died. this makes no sense whatsoever! look at real numbers, like 2 failed flights out of over a hundred. those are the true numbers. the defense department (or ofense department, depending on how you look at it) has a budget over 25 times the that of the space program, loses way more lives, and for the most part revolves around ending lives (yes I know some people just need to be stopped to keep us safe) while the space program losses 16 astronauts in the shuttle prgram (because it's underfunded) and everyone freaks out! exploration and advancement of the entire human race shouldn't be expected to be easier and cheaper than fighting among ourselves. Astronaughts who would be at risk are the biggest proponents of continuiong the shuttle program, so why do people who aren't going to be in any danger think it's such a bad idea?

 

[soccerguy789]

You make a very good point about the motivation of the program. It is really a shame that we didn't just keep the Apollo program because the cold war offered unbelievable support to the space program, but I suppose it was also thier downfall. The Apollo program was ended to build the shuttle, which was built so that it could be used to retrieve enemy satalites, and possibly be a huge, unstoppable bomber. The thing is that the shuttle may have suffered some failures, and may need some redesign, but for the moment, it can do something that would be very helpfull, bring things back down. this trick has never really been used before to the scale we're talking about, but imagine if you used the shuttle, you could bring your lunar lander home, greatly increasing the reusablity of your whole system with little penalty to price. (both CEV systems can be launched in 1 shuttle and 1 shuttle derived launch vehicle launch, let the shuttle stick around, and bring everything but the propulsion stages back. Believe me, i would love to see the shuttle replaced just as much as you, But the CEV is not a replacement. it's a vehicle that better suits our needs. (cheaper, no sense using a heavy lift booster to launch 6 people into orbit), but the shuttle was ahead of its time, or maybe we are all just lagging behind and it was right on time, but Soyuz is outdated, the shuttle just needs new technology. A few new computers, new insulation on the tanks (so it won't flake off) and dare I ask for some flyback boosters? all were planned to happen, but none of them did, and That is why the shuttle fails. I don't think we even would use the shuttle, but we should at least keep it on the shelf, you don't have to fly it unless you need it, thats how the russian space program has made due with no money. only launch what you need, but if you have hardware designed in the 60's that will do the trick, take it out.