Re: Shuttle Safety [was: Re...

Hey malcom, and any body who disputes that safety should be first,
please realize your are arguing with nasas own words as you should read
the following
..
Space shuttle annual report 2001
Page 3
"Space Shuttle Program Goal 1 . Fly Safely
Since returning to flight in 1988, the SSP has had an outstanding
safety record and significant progress has been made in improving the
reliability of some of its major components. Our goal is to ensure that
this legacy continues by investing in upgrades that
embrace advanced technologies that improve reliability while assuring
safety."


Now your question of how to fund safety upgrades is the exact concern I
share myself, and the asap shares as well. According to osha the cost
of the Columbia tragedy in 2003 was $ 1,076,332,029.00 (*26), and even
though the caib determined long term budgetary constraints contributed
to the tragedy nasa still diverted "$170 million from space shuttle
upgrades" to the return to flight program. Funding and completion of
such a large project as a shuttle program qra will have the benefit of
us fully understand the shuttle fleet before we retire it in 2010, and
for providing a more complete foundation when our nation is ready to
design the next generation winged space vehicle. Politicians
qualitatively make decisions about what how to prioritize the spending
of money to confront issues/problems our society is determines is
important. And if nasa's first stated goal of the shuttle program is
to fly safely, then we space geeks should determine funding safety in
our space program is the highest priority as well, and encourage our
politicians to prioritize spending to fund the necessary safety
upgrades like a complete program qra in order to make the fleet safe
for our astronauts.
tom

*26.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/safety/osha/OSHA_2004%20.pdf
ANNUAL OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REPORT
OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Reporting Period Fiscal Year: 2004
Page 27 XIII. NASA Agency Property Damage, 5-years (figure 12)
The property damage cost at NASA Centers from 2000 to 2004 is
illustrated in
Figure 12. · In 2004, a favorable decrease in property damage cost by
$1,074,513,875.00 since 2003 was observed.
· In 2003, the cause of the spike was attributed to the following:
Item Cost STS 107 Space Shuttle $ 1,076,332,029.00

(*26)
NASA's Space Shuttle Program: Issues for
Congress Related to The Columbia Tragedy
and "Return to Flight"
Marcia S. Smith
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/48804.pdf
page 4, par 3
" Cost. NASA's most recent public estimate of the total cost for
RTF (FY2003-2009)
was released in July 2004. RTF costs are in addition to regular shuttle
funding, although
some of the RTF money has been taken from other shuttle-related
activities (e.g.
upgrades). The July 2004 estimate was $2.2 billion, double the previous
estimate of $1.1
billion. For FY2005, NASA requested $4.3 billion for the shuttle
program. In November
2004, NASA informed Congress it needed $762 million more than expected
for FY2005.
In the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447), Congress
approved the
$4.3 billion, subject to an across-the-board 0.80% rescission.
Conferees stated (H.Rept.
108-792) that NASA could submit a request for supplemental
appropriations, or
reprogram funds from other NASA programs. Congress also appropriated
$126 million
to NASA in an FY2005 emergency supplemental for hurricane relief (P.L.
108-324).
According to a May 10, 2005 update to its FY2005 operating plan, NASA
is
reprogramming the following funds into RTF: $55 million from the
Science Mission
Directorate ($20 million from space science, $35 million from earth
science); $375.8
million from the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate ($73 million
from biological
and physical research, $204 million from human and robotic technology,
and $98 million
from transportation systems); and $331.2 million from the Space
Operations Mission
Directorate ($160 million from the space station, $170 million from
space shuttle
upgrades, and $1.2 million from space flight support).
Whether the shuttle program overall is receiving adequate funding
continues to be
a question. The CAIB noted that long term budget constraints were a
factor in the
Columbia tragedy. NASA's FY2006 shuttle budget request is $4.5
billion, with a
projection that it will decline to $2.4 billion by FY2010. NASA plans
to retire the shuttle in 2010. Whether the agency can accomplish the
remaining required shuttle launches (see
below) within such a declining shuttle budget remains to be seen."



Malcolm Bacchus wrote:
In article <1153284808.134270.214270@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation@xxxxxxxxx (columbiaaccidentinvestigation)
wrote:

*From:* "columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
<columbiaaccidentinvestigation@xxxxxxxxx>
*Date:* 18 Jul 2006 21:53:28 -0700

The interesting thing is I have cited my sources in backing my
statements while none of the posts refuting my writings have ANY
citation backing them lacking the ability for a reader to validate if
in fact what is said is more than just an opion with out backing or
credibility.

What a sentence. None of your sources, as far as I can see, explain
how NASA can _afford_ to make safety the number one priority. You are
therefore effectively saying "close down the space program".

Malcolm B

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ares vs DIRECT
    ... "Ares III" and the general public will hardly notice. ... The principal difference is the substitution of RS-68 engines for SSMEs on the core stage (as NASA eventually did with the Ares V). ... I eventually discovered a set of the ACI Draft version of the ESAS Report which included the cost figures behind ESAS which was the first crack in the proposal which I found. ... The argument I heard was that the new LV costs needed to match Shuttle thereby providing sufficient work for the existing workforce. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Ares vs DIRECT
    ... "Ares III" and the general public will hardly notice. ... The principal difference is the substitution of RS-68 engines for SSMEs on the core stage (as NASA eventually did with the Ares V). ... ESAS Report which included the cost figures behind ESAS which was the ... Shuttle thereby providing sufficient work for the existing workforce. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Shuttle Safety [was: Re...
    ... of interest built in to the nasa administrators professional decisions ... recommended for safety upgrades by the independent body of the asap. ... Item Cost STS 107 Space Shuttle $ 1,076,332,029.00 ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: Foam still a key concern for shuttle launch
    ... As of 2004 nasa had budgeted for $2.2 invested in return to flight ... asaps recommended safety upgrades prior to the sts-107 tragedy. ... The accounting item cost in "property damage" alone ... Item Cost STS 107 Space Shuttle $ 1,076,332,029.00 ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Shuttle Fix Aimed at Reducing Risk to Space Station
    ... But NASA managers opted against a permanent fix because it would take at ... NASA safety engineers say action being taken will reduce the ... already remote chance that shuttle steering jets could accidentally ignite ... Two electronics boxes called Reaction Jet Drivers route firing commands to ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
Loading