 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / February 2005NY Times: Critics Question NASA on Safety of the Shuttles
NY Times: Critics Question NASA on Safety of the Shuttles February 7, 2005 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/science/07nasa.html?ei=5094&en=4f4d4de22ee 94611&hp=&ex=1107838800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&position By JOHN SCHWARTZ As NASA prepares to return the space shuttle to orbit this spring, a debate over whether the fleet is as safe as it should be has been building inside and outside the space agency. There is widespread agreement that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, prodded by a searing report from the expert panel that investigated the loss of the Columbia two years ago, has made the fleet safer, and the agency is moving full speed toward launching as early as May. But critics, citing internal agency documents and NASA's own acknowledgment that it has not made all the improvements it committed to, contend that the agency is rushing back to the unforgiving environment of space with too much of the job left undone. Are we not going to fall into a trap here? How safe is safer? Space is a risky business, and the hardware is undoubtedly getting old, and what was considered the best we could do in the late 70s is not going to be now, but when you have commitments and no back up plan, and people willing to take the risk, what do you do? Its more a cultural question than anything else. Its OK for people to die in a war, but if its on space hardware??? The only answer if you cannot answer if enough has been done to be safe, is not to do it at all, but if you do that, will you ever do anything? Brian  SignatureBrian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > NY Times: Critics Question NASA on Safety of the Shuttles > February 7, 2005 [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > much > of the job left undone. >Are we not going to fall into a trap here? How safe is safer? NASA said after columbia it would meet ALL safety board recomendations. Its now cklear they cant do that. Time to ground the program permanetely and get a new plan before more die unnexcessarily . . End the dangerous wasteful shuttle now before it kills any more astronauts.... Two Brian's think alike. How many bleeding liberals does it take to decide when to launch people into space? Hey Wilbur Wright! You better not fly that thing. It's dangerous! Hey Louis & Clark! You better come back now. It's dangerous out West. Hey you Neanderthals! You better put out that fire. It's hot! Exploration and discovery are risks. It's not like we wrap a guy in tin-foil, tie him to a huge bottle rocket and light the fuse. We spend vast sums of money, effort, and time preparing for these events. I am certain the people who strap in are very aware they may not make it back. Yet they still sign up to go. It is time to resume flight. 100% is a goal but unfortunately is not a destination. (Unachievable). It's also time to design new hardware and systems to improve capability and safety. But I for one want to proceed with what we have while we design the next vehicle. Brian > Are we not going to fall into a trap here? How safe is safer? > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >> much >> of the job left undone. >Exploration and discovery are risks. It's not like we wrap a guy in >tin-foil, tie him to a huge bottle rocket and light the fuse. Of course not. There's the Flight Readiness Review to complete first, and then the waiving of the Criticality-One safety items. SignatureJoseph Nebus ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>Exploration and discovery are risks. It's not like we wrap a guy in >>tin-foil, tie him to a huge bottle rocket and light the fuse. > > Of course not. There's the Flight Readiness Review to complete > first, and then the waiving of the Criticality-One safety items. I don't understand why NASA cancelled the Hubble servicing mission on safety grounds, yet is apparently considering flying the shuttle without implementing all the CAIB safety recommendations. -- Joe D. >I don't understand why NASA cancelled the Hubble servicing >mission on safety grounds, yet is apparently considering flying >the shuttle without implementing all the CAIB safety recommendations. Hidden motives abound in the former. NASA is not keen on paying the cost of a Hubble servicing mission, and most especially does not want to have to fight off later demands for continued operations and *more* servicing visits. Safety makes a wonderful excuse for closing Hubble down. As for the CAIB recommendations, the problem is that a few of them have turned out to be a lot harder than they look. In particular, last I heard, it seemed unlikely that any meaningful in-orbit RCC repair capability can be provided -- the RCC areas are just too sensitive to even small flaws, so it's really hard for a field repair to be good enough. Signature"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer -- George Herbert | henry@spsystems.net > ...it seemed unlikely that any meaningful in-orbit RCC repair > capability can be provided -- the RCC areas are just too sensitive to even > small flaws, so it's really hard for a field repair to be good enough. Yes I've heard that but don't understand it. Intuitively it seems even a rough repair would enable a single reentry. After all Columbia made it to about 200k ft with a hole in the wing. I can see turbulence from a rough repair causing undesirable downstream damage, but the goal is just get down intact. I've heard similar concerns about rough tile repairs -- that it's totally unworkable because it's not flat to 1/8". Yet the shuttle routinely has survived with totally missing tiles, or just the thin densified layer. How could a rough repair be worse than that? -- Joe D. >> ...the RCC areas are just too sensitive to even >> small flaws, so it's really hard for a field repair to be good enough. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I can see turbulence from a rough repair causing undesirable downstream >damage, but the goal is just get down intact. The problem (as I understand it -- not something I've followed closely) is simply that even quite a small hot-gas leak into the leading edge tends to result in disaster. The shuttle spends quite a while in the region of high heating; you don't need a hole anywhere near the size of Columbia's to be lethal. It's hard to make a simple field repair reliably airtight. >I've heard similar concerns about rough tile repairs -- that it's >totally unworkable because it's not flat to 1/8". Yet the shuttle >routinely has survived with totally missing tiles... Not in the hot areas, if memory serves. (Again, not a topic I've followed closely.) And I dimly recall that small surface irregularities have been known to cause heating problems. Signature"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer -- George Herbert | henry@spsystems.net >>I don't understand why NASA cancelled the Hubble servicing >>mission on safety grounds, yet is apparently considering flying [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > servicing visits. Safety makes a wonderful excuse for closing Hubble > down. They also want to save money by deactivating the low-inclination TAL sites in Africa, which would otherwise have to be kept available three years just for this one flight, and are becoming politically troublesome for the US (Ben Guerir in particular). > As for the CAIB recommendations, the problem is that a few of them > have turned out to be a lot harder than they look. In particular, > last I heard, it seemed unlikely that any meaningful in-orbit RCC > repair capability can be provided -- the RCC areas are just too > sensitive to even small flaws, so it's really hard for a field repair > to be good enough. It's even harder to pull off a field repair away from ISS, due to the problem of providing a stable EVA worksite. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > They also want to save money by deactivating the low-inclination TAL sites > in Africa, which would otherwise have to be kept available three years just > for this one flight, and are becoming politically troublesome for the US > (Ben Guerir in particular). Good point. I've heard that NASA teams who deploy there stay locked in a secure compound when not working, and that terrorist threats could shut down the airport and abort a shuttle countdown, at the cost of a telephone call. If NASA won't launch without a TAL site, and terrorists can close it down at will, it's a very very bad situation to be in. They'd have to get ALL the open sites, but local weather helps them cover all bases. > Exploration and discovery are risks. What exactly are orbital missions exploring and discovering? Seems to me most of the time is spent on keeping the ISS running. > Two Brian's think alike. > > How many bleeding liberals does it take to decide when to launch people > into space? What makes you think "bleeding liberals" hold the patent on risk aversion? As I hear it, Sean "It's too risky to visit Hubble" O'Keefe is a die-hard conservative. Spare us your outdated stereotypes. -Kim- > NY Times: Critics Question NASA on Safety of the Shuttles > February 7, 2005 > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/science/07nasa.html?ei=5094&en=4f4d4de22ee > 94611&hp=&ex=1107838800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&position Anybody got a copy somewhere so you don't have to register? -gc Signature"Americans do not like long, inconclusive wars. This is going to be a long, inconclusive war." -- Ho Chi Minh > > NY Times: Critics Question NASA on Safety of the Shuttles > > February 7, 2005 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/science/07nasa.html?ei=5094&en=4f4d4de22ee > > 94611&hp=&ex=1107838800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&position > > Anybody got a copy somewhere so you don't have to register? Go to bugmenot.com. > -gc >Anybody got a copy somewhere so you don't have to register? > >-gc Click on the link below. Use this site for whenever you need a throwaway user name and password. http://www.bugmenot.com/ > NY Times: Critics Question NASA on Safety of the Shuttles > February 7, 2005 Eh. There's no way to make this thing safe given fundamental design choices made thirty years ago. The next Shuttle will be lost to ascent engine failure, or OMS failure, or landing gear collapse. > > NY Times: Critics Question NASA on Safety of the Shuttles > > February 7, 2005 > > Eh. There's no way to make this thing safe given fundamental design > choices made thirty years ago. The next Shuttle will be lost to ascent > engine failure, or OMS failure, or landing gear collapse. I disagree. For several reasons. But mostly I suspect the next accident, if there is one is something that isn't easily foreseeable. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.