Replies

This may not be the thread, but my tentative layperson's not fully informed view, is that I am quite unhappy with NASA. For starters, just why would they let a plane fly without anyway to rescue the crew if it appeared to dangerous for the plane to reenter the atmosphere, and endure that punishing heat? If I were Bush, I would be asking a lot of questions. I am also dissatisfied that NASA did not disclose the damage to the wing if it knew, prior to reentry. Maybe that knowledge, if it existed, simply didn't get up the food chain. Whatever, I am not a happy camper. The net result, is that the plane is unlikely to ever fly again. That is my guess.

For starters, just why would they let a plane fly without anyway to rescue the crew if it appeared to dangerous for the plane to reenter the atmosphere, and endure that punishing heat?

You mean this time, or for all of them? I've heard astronauts say it's like sitting on top of a controlled bomb. They ALL know the risks.

I am also dissatisfied that NASA did not disclose the damage to the wing if it knew, prior to reentry

It was in the papers right after the launch and they did discuss it with the crew, from what they said today.

For starters, just why would they let a plane fly without anyway to rescue the crew if it appeared to dangerous for the plane to reenter the atmosphere, and endure that punishing heat?

Because it seems that despite our having grown accustomed to such flights, the role of this spacecraft was just inherently dangerous, and at some points a failsafe or backup plan was impossible.

Actually it would be incredibly sad and short sighted to limit all human space travel to only that which has total safety redundancy. Too limiting when it involves exploration and scientific advancement. There were moments in Chris Columbus' voyage where they were past a point of no return, similarly test pilots must intrinsicly perform in dangerous conditions "without a net". Perhaps our current societal perceptions of acceptable risk/reward are too averse on the risk side and too unaware/unappreciative of the payouts, and in fact the requirements, of risk. Don't get me wrong, I was terribly upset and angry to hear of the deaths. But I grimly accept it because it goes with the territory, same as with military deaths or those of polar explorers. While I agree with your assessment that this accident could end up grounding the program, my guess is that it will not. There will likely be a split of opinion towards this issue with the familiar male/female camps(political, moreso than gender, i.e. risk vs. safety), but this time I think society is and has shifted just enough for the male side to prevail. Could be one of those indicator issues.