Posted on 02/03/2003 9:34:25 PM PST by kattracks
Because there is something about Humans that makes them want to go. If Humanity ever loses that basic instinct then space exploration will die.
Risk is gambling. You do it every time you drive your car.
OK, but does that imply that they have to go on all the ferrying flights too? If the base flight failure rate is 2% and humans are limited to 1/N of the flights (N>=2), then the flight mortality failure chance goes down from 2% to 2/N%, which seems acceptable if the cost of automating is "small". It's at least "small" in terms of human cost. I thought lack of automation (insistence on the manned space flight elements of the program) has been the primary criticism of NASA by the astro-scientist set at least since Apollo.
Of course it has been the criticism. Automation is the holy grail of engineers and scientists and it is a damn good thing too BUT, there is also a visceral need for Human involvement. Does the computerized lathe operator feel the same at the end of the day that the machinist of yore felt? My problem with NASA is the earth orbit fixation. I want to see us actually EXPLORING space not sending multi-billion dollar delivery trucks into orbit.
It seems to me that retrofitting for remote control avoids many of the worst aspects of these issues.
On another tack, I wonder if the NASA investigation will reveal in hindsight that Columbia was inherently more dangerous than the other shuttles to fly. That (and bringing back freon foam, and having formal standby Soyuzes for space rescue option) would seem to permit the shuttle program to get back on track sooner (and so avoid the personnel standby costs).
(I am not a NASA engineer, etc.)
Sure. I am however considering that our system of government has not, for whatever reason, achieved the level of success it set out the achieve with the shuttle. It is significantly more expensive and significantly more dangerous than originally billed. Also, we no longer have the luxury of being able to say shame on NASA and the USG for fooling us once in this case.
At what point would the American public be convinced that a different direction is necessary, at least for the short term? If most people say we continue to need manned flight because of emotional "human destiny" reasons, and NASA continues its current trend, we can expect another tragedy in another 50 flights or so. That will make three.
Or we could act to reduce losses in a preventative manner and start to squirrel up for something more to your liking (eg moon base, L5, or manned mars expedition) in a delayed gratification manner.
I'm not against manned space travel personally. I rather like the idea, in fact. I just prefer to be realistic, and put robots where it makes the most sense for some of the drudge work. We replaced manned bomber crews with missiles in the early 1950s. We could have done the same with respect to earth orbital platforms in the 1980s. Then we might have had money left over to start on a moon base (manned or unmanned) by now.
Right now few people actually get very excited about earth orbit stuff. Even on the last Columbia flight, it seems as if it was only a few Freepers and assorted nerds who actually bothered to watch the re-entry. Where is the glamor in that?
(I watched exactly one shuttle flight re-entry myself, the first. I suppose I figured that all the others would look just like the first, so I skipped them.)
I think the barriers here are not technical but sociological (and fiscal, if we believe the space program should pay its own way). Collectively, we seem unable to plan rationally beyond the next fiscal year, not to mention decade. NASA and the USG went for the shuttle to keep voter interest high. When it waned anyway, shuttle safety got the short end of the fiscal stick, with predictable results. In hindsight, it may have been in my opinion a collective failure. Our civilization, given our republican mode of government, can only accelerate progress in space so fast, beyond which we end up defeating ourselves one way or another. We may want to go to Mars within 2 decades or so, and we may want a *truly* reliable space shuttle now, but we don't want to have to put up with 75-student classrooms, or a 50% increase in commuter delay, or 10% increase in federal taxes, to pay for it in a fiscally responsible manner. So we put NASA and the astronauts in what is essentially a losing proposition. We press onwards and only unconsciously recognize that we are gambling with peoples' lives with our choices and compromises. (And sometimes, we lose.)
I've always had some questions about the preceding - such as how the silicon rubber vulcanizing adhesive could possibly cure at orbital temperatures, whether titanium could really be expected to survive re-entry temperatures, etc. - but those were the "facts" at one time.
Personally, I don't understand, given all of the preceding, why replacement of the insulating surface as soon as sufficient supplies of titanium became available - or replacement with a molded ceramic material which would not be susceptible to fragmentation - was not a high priority with NASA from the very beginning. But, what do I know... I'm a EE, not a rocket scientist... and my company simply refuses to build devices for military, medical, or aerospace applications, for liability reasons...
The reason you have not heard it discussed is because the Soyuz is basically a "one-trip" lifeboat for the ISS. It can only leave and come down. It, like Columbia, does not have enough fuel to change orbits except to de-orbit and enter the atmosphere.
You don't really believe that, do you? That's their fig leaf for now, and too many freepers are buying it.
Why yes, Fred, I do believe it. The video is not watched in real time. In addition, the foam falling incident takes LESS THAN ONE SECOND. What we see on the replays is about 10 frames of a video that is recorded at 30 frames per second.
Had someone noticed the impact and realized the implications, the launch could have been aborted by releasing the SRBs and detaching the External Fuel Tank and the shuttle could return to Kennedy Space Center. This option is available up to 3 minutes 45 seconds into the flight. After that a Trans-Atlantic abort could be used. When the orbiter has flown too far to land across the Atlantic, then the only choice is Abort to Orbit... but that would require re-entry into the atmosphere to get down... with the catastrophic results we have seen.
This article in Space Daily talks about fullerenes and other exotic materials that will be stronger, lighter and even capable of repairing themselves.
I have faith in the extremely bright men and women working on new discoveries and translating them to the manufacturing stage. I am still optimistic about the future of spaceflight, with and without humans on board.
"It takes about three weeks, at our best effort, to prepare the shuttle for launch once we're at the pad," Mr. Buckingham said, "and we're not even at the pad."
Exactly what part of "and we're not even at the pad." don't you understand?
You know what sounds useless, the damed Orbiter Assembly Building at Kennedy Space Center, I mean it is a place where they repair Space Shuttles for goddsakes yet it was of no use to those on a damaged space craft. It's as if you were on a ship that couldn't divert to a dry dock because that dry dock was built down on Earth instead of being useful where I want it.
Your argument is specious... and silly.
Sen. Smith was referring to the tragic sinking of the Titanic when he talked about "this sort of thing," not the journey/adventure itself. We don't "celebrate" the loss of life that sometimes occurs. We mourn for a while, we remember, and we do our level best as a people to ensure that it doesn't happen again. But unfortunately, it always does and always will.
It's not that we shouldn't build big ships -- we must! It's that we'll never have a sea full of USS Titanics
(nitpick ON)
Royal Mail Steamer (RMS) Titanic. The designation (also known as Royal Mail Ship by some) was a mark of distinction used to refer to specific British flag ships that met certain standards of speed and quality.
HMS (His/Her Majesty's Ship) designates British warships, USS (United States Ship) designates Men o' War of the United States, and USNS (United States Naval Ship) designates non-combatant ships flying the American flag.
(nitpick OFF)
It is a great and true of the US culture that we ARE indeed fond of preserving life and put great stock in it.
Absolutely correct, which is why these Columbia threads bring out the best (and sometimes the worst) in all of us. Couldn't have said it better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.