NASA Grounds Shuttle Fleet While Probing Columbia Disaster

voanews.com ^ | 02 Feb 2003, 01:22 UTC | David McAlary

[js1138]

IMHO, they need to do something about SPACE DEBRIS. There's all kinds of junk flying around up there that would wreak havoc if it collided with an 18,000 MHP space shuttle. It might already have.

Space junk is an ongoing problem. Most of the bits big enough to bring down the shuttle are tracked by radar.

Most of it is orbiting in the same direction, so the relative speed is not 18,000 mph. You could really hurt someone by launching a bucket of bolts against the earth's spin. Remember that when the alien invaders come.

[Jim Noble]

>>we have had two catastrophic failures now in around hundred flights (suggesting a catstrophic failure rate probability o!��5{��������50), and have now lost 40% of our five-vehicle fleet<<

And what is the engineering and production plan to deal with a loss rate of 1:50 flights?

The mission concepts of STS presumed a loss rate of 1:100,000 flights, not 1:50. There are no plans to produce a new orbiter every fifty flights-there are no plans to produce orbiters at all.

And there is no engineering program for a replacement.

Fly 'em until they're all gone, then leave space to the Chinese.

Is that really the plan?

[Jim Noble]

>>If the shuttle program is canceled, the space program will die<<

Then the space program (the American one) is dead, because the shuttle will never fly again.

[Xthe17th]

Most of the bits big enough to bring down the shuttle are tracked by radar. I disagree. MOST of the junk up there is TOO SMALL to be tracked by radar, let alone be seen by an approaching vessel (even though they wouldn't have time to do anything about it) which is thus the crux of the problem.

I stand partially corrected on the relative velocities in this regard: there are different orbit heights and at some point one gets to geosynchronous which isn't moving wrt the Earth. Thus, any debris from a geosynchronous deployment would yield the same result as collision with a stationary object, ie relative 18,000 mph if impacted by a shuttle.

[Xthe17th]

...there are no plans to produce orbiters at all.

I thought I heard that each orbiter had a life expectancy of 100 flights. With a 5 vessel fleet and approx 5 launches per year (107 launches in 20 years), the Space Shuttle program was good for 100 years...or until something better comes along.

[Jim Noble]

>> I thought I heard that each orbiter had a life expectancy of 100 flights<<

You and I have heard a lot of things.

The actual catastrophic failure rate is 1/50. With four orbiters, that means 200 trips and it's over.

And the losses are of course losses of irreplaceable heroes and explorers, not merely billions of dollars of steel and silicon.

The mission concepts and the lack of alternatives or followon vehicles are simply not consistent with a failure rate of 1:50.

[AdA$tra]

....spend hundreds of millions of dollars (or lives....

How many millions of lives have been save by advances brought forth by the space program? These people volunteer for this fairly dangerous duty in order to advance mankind's agenda. For their sake and ours, let's not wimp out now. Get back on the horse and ride....if you need a volunteer....sign me up.

[George W. Bush]

>> I thought I heard that each orbiter had a life expectancy of 100 flights<< You and I have heard a lot of things. The actual catastrophic failure rate is 1/50. With four orbiters, that means 200 trips and it's over.

Well, do the math.

They expected the airframes to last 100 missions. But since the original estimate was that we'd lose a shuttle once every 75 missions, there was a 33% chance that any of them would last the 100 missions to begin with.

Space is dangerous. But we need to keep going. And we need a new fleet, with boosters for heavy lift and smaller space planes or capsules for manned flight. The shuttle is too complex and tries to do too many things and costs too much to fly. We need better vehicles.

[George W. Bush]

The obvious problem with the grounding is that it will be many months, if not years before we can 'safely' fly again.

No vehicles are "safe". There are only degress of safety.

NASA and the astronaut corps have always known the danger. And they know it's worth going even if some crews draw the short straw.

[Truth29]

"...the shuttle will never fly again."

I sincerely hope you are wrong. If not, we had best teach our children to speak Chinese so they can help the next great world power. I say this because, I don't think the US will retain the political will and interest for a period long enough to design and develop a replacement for the shuttle, if their is no manned space program in the interim.

[Jim Noble]

>> say this because, I don't think the US will retain the political will and interest for a period long enough to design and develop a replacement for the shuttle, if their is no manned space program in the interim<<

We have not had the will for a long, long time.

[lavaroise]

That is pure garbage. The shuttle makes satellite placement what 100 -- 200 percent more expensive than disposable rockets?

For what mission? All these things are mission design dependent. The Shuttle did not come out of thin air because it was thought to be a nice toy. Reusability has its benefits. And the 100 to 200 percent price tag increase is ludicrous. The shuttle is multimissioned. You talk about pure garbage, you're the one adding nothing to the equation.

[Magnum44]

Please note 'safely' was in quotes, meaning as safe as can reasonably be conducted.

To those that say 'keep flying', I am not arguing that spirit at all. What I am saying is that in this and other dangerous businesses, its not smart to simply take chances, and professionals don't. We DO take calculated risks, fully understand the problems, and mitigate the dangers to the fullest extent. This is prudent and necessary. Up until Saturday, NASA was taking calculated risks. To continue now, without an investigation, is rolling a dice.

In aviation, the rules are written in blood. To not stop and learn those lessons is just as much letting the crew die in vain as to stop flying alltogether.

[Magnum44]

To those that say 'keep flying', I am not arguing that spirit at all. What I am saying is that in this and other dangerous businesses, its not smart to simply take chances, and professionals don't. We DO take calculated risks, fully understand the problems, and mitigate the dangers to the fullest extent. This is prudent and necessary. Up until Saturday, NASA was taking calculated risks. To continue now, without an investigation, is rolling a dice.

In aviation, the rules are written in blood. To not stop and learn those lessons is just as much letting the crew die in vain as to stop flying alltogether.

And after a thorough investigation, I also would volunteer.

[Wondervixen]

You'd think that in 20+ years, NASA could have come up with something less "Iffy" than Heat Tiles to cover the underbelly of the ship...Maybe a teflon shield, like the old capsules had?

[Destro]

Since when are commercial concerns quantified as missions?

[George W. Bush]

What I am saying is that in this and other dangerous businesses, its not smart to simply take chances, and professionals don't. We DO take calculated risks, fully understand the problems, and mitigate the dangers to the fullest extent. This is prudent and necessary.

We could save more lives than were lost on the shuttle every single day by lowering the highway speed limit to 20 mph. And by outlawing motorcycles and bicycles. And private aircraft.

Why so much concern with saving lives just on the shuttle? I'd like to know how many qualified astronauts have died in car wrecks or other "preventable" accidents over the course of the space program. We've now lost 17 astronauts. Are you so sure that we haven't killed more astronauts by not enacting more stringent vehicular safety laws for vehicles they use other than the shuttle?

[Lee'sGhost]

NASA Grounds Shuttle Fleet

OK, somebody help me out here. The "fleet" is, what, three ships now? As far as I can tell there are only Endeavor, Discovery, and Atlantis. And Discovery hasn't flown since 8/01? Anybody know why? I did a quick look around the NASA site and could find no missions scheuled for Discover.

[mikhailovich]

The Americans should have turned the craft around after all the booster separations. Doesn't anyone find it curious that an agency will delay launch, after launch, due to backup water lines leaking, or light winds, or etc, but will continue a mission after seeing the wing become damaged?

I believe some heads will roll after this decision.

[Magnum44]

Your arguing with the wrong person. I am a strong supporter of manned space. I am telling you the pragmatic reality of the business. NASA will have to do a thorough investigation, and likely congress will do an 'independent' one before the shuttle flies again. This will be a long pocess whether you or I like it or not. As always, I simply try to provide the rationale, not argue with those who have different or otherwise informed opinions.

Just because I understand the enemy doesn't mean I agree with him. Likewise, it doesn't mean I ignore him lest I walk into my own undoing.