Replies

When I first started reading this article, I thought it was another whiney liberal complaining about the money we spend on the space program when we could be spending it on "social services" at home.

But it wasn't that and the author does make a few good points. We should not be depending upon 1970s technology to take us into space for the next 20 years! We should be developing a new generation of orbiters that utilize today's technology. During the past 20 years the advances in computer and materials technology has been phenomenal. A run-of-the-mill laptop computer today has more computing power then the original Space Shuttle had on its first launch in 1981. We should be moving forward, not treading water with the same old technology (even though the Space Shuttle has been "modified" over the years to take advantage of some of the newer technologies).

BTW, I don't think the Space Shuttle is unsafe at all. I agree with you that manned spaceflight is dangerous and will be for the forseeable future. Anybody going into space willingly assumes those risks. I think the 98.2% success rate of the 113 Space Shuttle flights is a record that NASA can be proud of. But we must move on.

>>. I think the 98.2% success rate of the 113 Space Shuttle flights is a record that NASA can be proud of<<

I don't know if they're proud or not.

But I do know that they have designed a program around a failure rate of 1/100,000 whose empirical failure rate is 1/75.

There is no engineering or production capability that has been created or is planned to back up a complete loss of orbiter fleet every 300 missions.

I grieve for our heros-we can't spare people like that.

But I spit on the politicians and PR artists who have allowed the STS program to become what it is-no, not allowed it to become-demanded that it become what it is.

People, please-honor our heroes but don't mix that up with defending their bureaucrat masters.

I saw a 1981 DeLorean last week. On the outside, it looked as sleek and breathtaking as it did in Back To The Future. On the inside, it was a piece of junk with an engine on its last legs. There is something to be said for metal fatigue, just as with airplanes. Perhaps its just time for the old ladies to be retired (what's left of them).

We don't need spam in a can to orbit satellites. Never did. If you think the loss of a $10 billion vehicle and seven lives every 75 missions is acceptable when satellites can be launched at a fraction of the cost and no loss of life using disposable boosters, then fly the Shuttle yourself on your own nickel.