Re: should space shuttle be cancelled?

On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 09:42:58 +0100, "MJP" <MJP@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Maybe NASA should start fighting back and being a bit more gung-ho rather
>than as you say, beating itself with sticks all the time.
>
>Declare, yes, the shuttle is dangerous. Apply here for a dangerous job. All
>those who fly are volunteers and fully accept the 1 in 100 risk, just like
>all astronauts and test pilots down the ages.
>
>OK, at one time the idea was to portray riding the shuttle as being as safe
>as a 747, but that idea should be abandoned for the bull*** it always
>really was.

I would certainly agree with that.

Space travel is indeed dangerous, where the Shuttle is the current
number one method to kill some astronauts. And certainly following
both Challenger and Columbia these people are painfully aware of just
what they are being strapped and bolted into.

The big point seems to be that if these astronauts are willing to risk
their lives on NASA's "great white flying elephant", then why is NASA
not willing to let them take that risk?

And NASA can do that simply by not grounding their Shuttle fleet every
time that they wish to debug some problem. Like this latest foam issue
is indeed a very minor risk. Considering all else that can go wrong
with the Shuttle, then why cannot NASA let their astronauts risk this
minor foam, when they have to risk the dangerous Shuttle anyway?

Then NASA can still work on fixing this problem. This way they also
get some real flight testing of their ideas.

That is why I have recently said that it seems a better idea to let
the very crew decide if they wish to take some risk or not. And that
is certainly better than "NASA beating itself with sticks", while
their astronauts support their choices simply because their lord and
master has spoken.

Astronauts I am sure are more upset that they are constantly unable to
fly into space because NASA is running it's dangerous manned
spaceflight programme on ultra safety mode.

So NASA should simply launch on schedule. And as a bonus they can go
and complete the ISS and service Hubble. Otherwise being an astronaut
is all about going nowhere quickly. And NASA has certainly been
criticized in the past for taking on more astronauts than what they
can currently make use of.

And so it is the real case that some of NASA's worthy astronauts won't
fly at all, even though they are happy to ride the Shuttle.

So if you accept astronauts free choice to risk their lives on the
Shuttle, then why make such a fuss should they die? As you can rest
assured that it is NASA's own self-punishment view that is the very
reason that everyone else is coming down hard on them.

Instead had they simply said that the Shuttle is dangerous. That is
what they have to use anywhere. And where these astronauts have
certainly accepted that risk. Then the next possible Shuttle accident
will just be a case of "The shuttle has done it again".

And to be more direct, then the Columbia crew doing a mach 16 free
fall over Texas did greatly help the space programme. More came out of
this lame mission than what they could have hoped.

Certainly their death is welcomed. However, they would have known the
risk. And where I expect that they would have been happy that their
death directly lead to their friends one day walking on the Moon and
Mars.

Since trips to the Moon and Mars are crap loads more dangerous than
going into LEO, then now seems like a good time for NASA to point out
that space travel is dangerous, people could die, but it is still
worth it anyway.

As quite simply NASA's current attempt to make the Shuttle look like a
100% safe transport system (again) simply won't wash. And what is more
is that their attempt to try and do the impossible is directly harming
their spaceflight programme. And that seems like a crime worse than
killing their employees.

And since some of the public is aware of these facts, then that is why
they are frustrated over NASA once again grounding their fleet
following what was their safest Shuttle launch to-date.

Is fixing this foam problem going to make the Shuttle a 100% safe
non-crew killing transport system? That obvious answer is "no". And so
why are they setting their projects back years simply by not allowing
their astronauts to accept their own risks?

And should there be another Shuttle accident, then hell go and buy
another one. The very nerve! And most of all to keep those damned
Shuttles flying. That hardware was good for the last 100+ launches and
so why not the one of Shuttle disaster +1?

Maybe the truth is that all the time that NASA keeps it's Shuttle
grounded then that is additional budget that they can syphon off into
more worthy projects.

Since this is s.s.p then NASA's one policy should be "Fly your bloody
Shuttles!".

And you can rest assured that it is safety concerns that have caused
all their manned projects to have their budgets spiral out of control,
while the time required doubles, triples and worse.

Just see how much their ISS construction is behind schedule to see
what I mean. Yikes!

Had NASA simply kept their shuttle flying, while still fixing these
safety concerns during on-going operations, then they could have
really completed the ISS by now.

Instead it seems quite obvious that at this rate they won't even reach
their minimum desired configuration. And it is not like Congress is
not willing to pay for the ISS being completed before Sept 2010.

So them not launching in September has no valid reason. As it should
be a case of "Yes, it still sheds a little foam. Deal with it. As we
certainly will during on-going operations".

As quite simply NASA should not be running their space programme like
this. They should not be launching people into space if they cannot
both state and accept the risks involved.

You may have noticed that the one thing that the commercial
sub-orbital people did was to say that their trip does carry some
risk. They also have business protection systems in place should they
kill some customers.

Everyone involved accepts the risks. They know that this will help to
advance spaceflight. And you can rest assured that following some
accident they would be looking to get launching again ASAP.

I hope that as a space supporter NASA knows that they are subjecting
me to "cruel and unusual punishments" simply by it being so painful to
see what they are doing to their manned space program.

Grounding their shuttles have become so common that it happens
following every problem. And sure enough as soon as this foam was
spotted the first thing that they did was to ground their fleet. Even
before Discovery returned from orbit. Or indeed before any real
analysis was done.

I am sure that every NASA employee has a "ground the shuttles" button
wired into their desk that they can push whenever they are in a bad
mood. Indeed, that is not untrue, considering their safety changes.

Is this really the organization that is going to take our species back
to the Moon and beyond? How can they possible do that if they cannot
state and accept the risks involved?

As sure enough following the first engine failure causing their
astronauts to take a unplanned trip into deep space it is going to be
NASA who self-implodes under their own guilt. Oh dear the corpses of
their astronauts would be orbiting the Sun for years to come.

And sure enough NASA's every craft across the solar system will be
grounded as NASA goes through a 2 to 4 year long rebuilding process of
their very confidence.

So I really have squat all respect for NASA's new and improved safety
guidelines. These are only harming their human spaceflight programme,
where that seems worse than blowing up their workers.

NASA's manned spaceflight programme has gone nowhere for the past 30
years simply because they are unable to make the hard choice required
and to take the risks.

Hell kill the Shuttle programme completely today if that is what they
decide is best. Use those funds on the CEV instead. Whatever transport
system they do use, then they should certainly make use of it.

The Shuttle seems like the way to go for now. So they should certainly
fly the bloody thing.

I rest my case.

Cardman.
.

Quantcast