Slashdot Mirror
Space Shuttles almost Ready to Re-Launch
stagmeister writes "CNN and Space.com are reporting that the Return to Flight Task Group, the overseeing committee that determines when the Space Shuttles can go back into space, has reported that the only items blocking the Shuttles are issues 'related to tank debris, orbiter hardening and tile repair.' They plan to re-meet in later this month to finalize their decision. However, 'NASA has made clear it intends to resume shuttle flights with the repair capabilities it has in hand without knowing for sure whether they would work in an emergency.' Would you want your children flying a space shuttle that hasn't been properly beta-tested?"
Oh screw the kids. Let's send George Bush up in the next one!!!
The original comment said that the Shuttle has a very good safety record for what it does. It carries people into orbit. Your Zenit doesn't do that. So your comparison doesn't exactly work.
The original comment did *not* address getting people into space. My comment had to do with delivering payloads into low Earth orbit.
I don't know what you are comparing.
It is not essential for humans to be in the spacecraft to deliver payloads.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
No. Just the manned launches, Progress is not included. Check the wikipedia article for more information. Space Disasters.
You only mention the manned failures because it makes your side look better; the failures being on unmanned craft, however, was just a coincidence.
No, the question was about passenger safety what the odds for his child on a launch vehicle was, not reliability; Soyuz is possibly less reliable, but it is somewhat safer for the cosmonauts.
By the way, that 2002 launch? It killed a soldier on the ground, who undoubtedly wasn't included in your count, in addition to wounding 8 (a mile away from the explosion, at that).
That was a Progress launch. It's quite possible that had it been a Soyuz that the cosmonauts would have escaped on the escape tower. The fatality was standing behind a plate glass window within the blast range. Very avoidable and very sad. Incidentally that shows a worse problem with the shuttle- a similar failure of the Shuttle could kill hundreds; the launch pad is surrounded by thousands of people for miles around, including watching from behind windows. Many, many deaths are to be expected.
The high safety of Soyuz is not a coincidence; it has been built in from the ground up (no pun intended). The Shuttle was badly designed; it has safety issues they still haven't solved, the foam for example is still expected to damage the tiles on takeoff; and some of the abort modes are extremely suspect. The Soyuz abort modes do actually work; in some cases we know this because they've been executed. Still, as with ejector seats, surviving and lack of injury is not the same thing- even in aeroplanes ejector seats often weaken the pilot enough that they never fly again.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"Yes, but even allowing for that, the facts say that Soyuz is more than twice as safe, per person who flies.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"It's actually about job creation schemes for Russians who could help foreign powers build ICBMs pointed at America. That's what the ISS is for. MIR did nearly all the exploration already. You'll note a lack of scientific papers coming from the ISS.
Space needs to be about money to get anywhere now. Space Tourism is the future; there's a reasonably plausible route to Lunar and Martian travel (including exploration) via it. First we need orbital hotels and suitable launchers. The suborbital stuff will hopefully derisk it for investors so that these can be built.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"